Cri.Appln.No.
1342/2022
:: 1 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1342 OF 2022
Shrikant s/o Tukaram Madrewar … APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & anr. … RESPONDENTS
.......
Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S.G. Ghayal, A.P.P. for respondent No.1
Ms Seema Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.2.
....…
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND
R.M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 7th FEBRUARY, 2023
P.C. :
With the consent of learned counsel for rival parties,
heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant has sought to quash First
Informant Report bearing Crime No.106/2021, registered with
Chakur Police Station and consequential criminal proceedings
bearing R.C.C. No.69/2022, pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Chakur, District Latur for the offence
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 2 ::
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant
that, even if the material available on record and accusations
levelled against the applicant are accepted, no offence of
abetment of suicide is made out.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
learned A.P.P. submitted that, refusal by the applicant and his
father to reconvey the property after repayment of loan and
raising objections for payment of compensation, which
respondent No.2 and his family were entitled to, amounts to
abetment of suicide. Learned counsel for respondent No.2
placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case of Daxaben Vs. State of Gujarat & ors. [2022 DGLS (SC)
925].
5. We have perused the records and considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective
parties. The only question for consideration is whether the First
Information Report and the other material on record disclose
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 3 ::
offence as alleged.
6. The aforesaid crime was registered pursuant to the
First Information Report lodged by respondent No.2, wherein he
has alleged that, in the year 2006, they had taken loan of
Rs.90,000/- from the father of the applicant. A document of
conditional sale was executed as security for refund of the loan
amount. He has stated that, the loan amount was repaid,
despite which the applicant did not execute the sale deed and
did not transfer the possession of land in their favour. It is
further alleged that, the subject land i.e. Gut No.424 was
acquired for the construction of highway and the compensation
was ordered to be paid to them. It is stated that, the applicant
herein had objected for the payment of the said amount. The
respondent No.2 has further stated that, he and his father had
approached the applicant and his father to execute the sale
deed in their favour, but they refused to execute the sale deed.
He claims that, his mother committed suicide on 20/3/2021 by
consuming poison due to the harassment caused by the
applicant. The statement of the father of the respondent No.2
is on similar line.
7. A perusal of the First Information Report and the
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 4 ::
other material on record indicate that, the land under Gut
No.424 has been acquired for the purpose of construction of
highway. The First Information Report reveals that the
applicant was claiming right to compensation on the basis of the
sale deed executed in his favour and had, therefore, lodged
objections before the acquiring body for payment of
compensation to the respondent No.2 and others. Lodging of
such objections, according to the respondent No.2, amounts to
abetment of suicide.
8. It may be mentioned that, the term ‘abetment’ as
defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, reads
thus :-
107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who --
First :- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly :- Engages with one or more other person
or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the
doing of that thing; or
Thirdly :- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 : A person who, by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 5 ::
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 : Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”
9. In the case of Mariano Anto Bruno Vs. The Inspector
of Police (Criminal Appeal No.1628 of 2022, the Hon’ble Apex
court has observed thus :
“24. While analyzing the provisions of Section 306
IPC along with the definition of abetment under
Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
[2021 SCC OnLine SC 873], has observed as under:-
“13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not
an offence as a person committing suicide goes
beyond the reach of law but an attempt to suicide
is considered to be an offence under Section 309
IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also
an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would be
relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which
reads as under :-
“306. Abetment of suicide. —If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
14. Though, the IPC does not define the word
‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionary meaning of
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 6 ::
suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from
a modern latin word ‘suicidium’ , ‘sui’ means
‘oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means ‘killing’. Thus, the
word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In
other words, act of death must be committed by
the deceased himself, irrespective of the means
adopted by him in achieving the object of killing
himself.
15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of
suicide a criminal offence and prescribes
punishment for the same.
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word
‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite
someone to do something. This Court in the case
of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
[(2010) 1 SCC 707] has defined the word
‘instigate’ as under:-
“Instigation is to goad, urge forward,
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.”
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and
its co-relation with Section 306 IPC has been
discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of
S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr
[(2010) 12 SCC 190], it was observed as under:-
“Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a
positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide,
conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by the Supreme Court is
clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear
mens rea to commit the offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which led
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 7 ::
the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended
to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide.”
25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been
extensively laid out in M. Arjunan Vs. State,
represented by its Inspector of Police [(2019) 3 SCC
315] which are as under: -
“The essential ingredients of the offence under
Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the
intention of the accused to aid or instigate or
abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of
the accused, however, insulting the deceased by
using abusive language will not, by itself,
constitute the abetment of suicide. There should
be evidence capable of suggesting that the
accused intended by such act to instigate the
deceased to commit suicide. Unless the
ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit
suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be
convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”
26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306
IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime
must be visible with regard to determining the
culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench
of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
[(2019) 17 SCC 301] observed as under:-
“16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide,
there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of
incitement to the commission of suicide. It could
hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an offence
of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one,
involving multifaceted and complex attributes of
human behavior and responses/reactions. In the
case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the
Court would be looking for cogent and
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 8 ::
convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the
commission of suicide. In the case of suicide,
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by
another person would not suffice unless there be
such action on the part of the accused which
compels the person to commit suicide; and such
an offending action ought to be proximate to the
time of occurrence. Whether a person has
abetted in the commission of suicide by another
or not, could only be gathered from the facts and
circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person
has abetted commission of suicide by another;
the consideration would be if the accused is
guilty of the act of instigation of the act of
suicide. As explained and reiterated by this
Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation
means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the persons who
committed suicide had been hypersensitive and
the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to
hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts
and by his continuous course of conduct creates
a situation which leads the deceased perceiving
no other option except to commit suicide, the
case may fall within the four-corners of Section
306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in
tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the
victim, which eventually draws the victim to
commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty
of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea
on the part of the accused in such cases would be
examined with reference to the actual acts and
deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds
are only of such nature where the accused
intended nothing more than harassment or snap
show of anger, a particular case may fall short of
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 9 ::
the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if
the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased
reacted or was provoked, a particular case may
be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the
matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour,
each case is required to be examined on its own
facts, while taking note of all the surrounding
factors having bearing on the actions and psyche
of the accused and the deceased.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there
has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also
requires an active act or direct act which leads
deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and
the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused
to push deceased into such a position that he commits
suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide
and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide
of the deceased.”
10. The records reveal that by sale deed dated
2/2/2006 the father of the applicant had purchased the
property under Gat No.424 for sale consideration of
Rs.90,000/-. The respondent No.2 claims that it was a
conditional sale and the property was to be reconveyed on
payment of the loan amount. The allegations against the
applicant are that he failed to reconvey the property despite
repayment of loan and further lodged objection before the
acquiring body not to disburse compensation to respondent
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 10 ::
No.2. The dispute, if any, between the parties was of civil
nature. The mere fact that the applicant or his father had
refused to reconvey the land or that they had raised objection
before the Land Acquisition Officer would not constitute cruelty
or harassment. There is absolutely no material to indicate that
the applicants had directly or indirectly incited, instigated or
aided commission of the suicide. Thus, the allegations lack the
very element of abetment, which is an essential ingredient of
offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. Learned A.P.P. concedes that, there is no prima facie
material to show the involvement of the applicant in
commission of the offence under the Maharashtra Money-
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. In the absence of such
material, compelling the applicant to face trial would be an
abuse of the process of Court. Hence, in our considered view,
the case is squarely covered by illustrations No.(1) and (3) of
the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of
State of Haryana & ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ].
12. In the result, the criminal application is allowed in
terms of prayer clause (B) and (B-1). The First Informant
Report bearing Crime No.106/2021, registered with Chakur
Cri.Appln.No.1342/2022
:: 11 ::
Police Station and consequential criminal proceedings bearing
R.C.C. No.69/2022, pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Chakur, District Latur for the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money-
Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 is hereby quashed qua the
applicant.
13. Fees of the appointed Advocate Ms Seema Gaikwad
is quantified at Rs.6000/- (Rupees six thousand), to be paid by
the Legal Services Authority.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
fmp/-
