AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The present application is preferred by the applicants for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with crime No.370/2021 registered under Sections 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘I.P.C’.) Applicant No.1 is serving as a Manager IN Bajaj Finance Limited and applicant No.2 is Recovery Officer. As per the contention of applicants the Bajaj Finance Limited (Company) is a Non-banking Financial Company, incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and functioning within the meaning of Companies Act, 2013 inter-alia carrying business of extending financial assistance to the Borrower/s for various kinds of loan and applicant No.1 is working with the aforesaid company at its Wardha Office since 12.03.2018 and applicant No.2 is as Collecting Agent since 09.07.2020. Krushikesh Devtale, who is son of deceased Krushna Devtale lodged report at Police Station, Seloo alleging that deceased Krushna Devtale was borrower of Bajaj Financial Institution and he was serving in Daptari Agro Seeds Company, Seloo District Wardha. He had obtained a personal loan of Rs.90,000/- in the year 2019 from the said company. The applicants allegedly used to threat him for payment of the monthly instalment and therefore being fade up with the same, he has committed suicide by hanging himself. On the basis of the said report police have registered the crime against the present applicants.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants who submitted that as far as the allegations are concerned which are to the extent that the present applicants who are the officials of Bajaj Financial Company were demanding the loan amount and the threats were given. As far as suicide note which is found alongwith the deceased is concerned, wherein nothing is mentioned as to the threats by the present applicants. It is only to the extent that as they were demanding the amount of the instalment, therefore, he has committed suicide. He submitted that after registration of the crime the investigation was carried out. During investigation various statements were recorded. Suicide note was also forwarded to the handwriting expert. Handwriting expert opinion is received. He further submitted that as far as the abetment is concerned, which involves a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person to do particular thing to bring charge under Section 306 of the IPC. The act of abetment would require positive act of instigating , intentional aiding another person to commit suicide. Without mens rea on the part of the accused person being apparent from the face of the record, the charge under the aforesaid section cannot be sustained. In view of that he submitted that the application deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned APP strongly opposed the same and submitted that considering the suicidal note which is in the handwriting of the deceased shows that due to the threatening at the hands of the present applicants the deceased has committed suicide. The various statements were recorded during the investigation. The statements of the family members of the deceased also substantiated the same. It is undisputed that the deceased has obtained the loan and the instalments were due against it. But for the payment of the said instalment, he was threatened and being fade up for the same, he was committed suicide. Thus, prima facie material at this stage is made out and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.
Despite service to the respondent No. 2, the appointed counsel remained absent.
After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, the allegation in short is that the deceased has obtained the loan and as he has not paid the instalment amount, being the officials of the Bajaj Finance Company the present applicants allegedly threatened him by saying that he has to pay the instalment, otherwise they know how to recover the amount and due to which the deceased fade up and committed suicide. Suicidal note was found along with the deceased which is reproduced for the reference:-
“eh dq”.kk nsorkjs] o; 50] jk- lsyq vkt vkRegR;k dfjr vkgs- ;kyk tckcnkj ctkt Qk;uaslps vrqy ckyikaMs o dj.k ikBd vkgs- ek>h EMI 2 rkj[ksyk ckaml >kkyh- eh iSls Hkj.;kklkBh r;kj vlqugh R;kauk lkaxqugh rs jkst ekÖ;k ? kjh ;k;ps- ;keqGs eyk ekufld ruko >kyk ;kph dYiuk jfoaUnz dksaVcdj o ;’koar okanhys ;kauk Qksu}kjs lkaxhryh vkgs
The various statements of the witnesses are also recorded during the investigation. The statement of Ravindra Kotamkar is also recorded which shows that as the amount of loan was insisted to be paid , the deceased was fade up. It is further stated by him that the deceased informed him that the present applicants approached to him and abused him as he has not paid the amount. As far as the statement of said Ravindra Kotamkar is concerned, which appears to be a hearsay evidence regarding the abuses by the present applicants. As far as the family members including the wife of the deceased is concerned, nowhere the stated that there were any abuses by the present applicants for repayment of the instalments. Admittedly the defence of the accused is not to be looked into at this stage, when the application is filed for the quashing of the FIR. However, while considering the ingredients of the offence the definition given under Section 306 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment of suicide, which reads thus:-
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.
Classification of offence. - The offence under this section is cognizable, non-bailable, noncompoundable and triable by Court of Session.
Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) defines abetment of a thing, which reads thus:
“107.Abetment of a thing. 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 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 wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
Section 108 of the Indian Penal reads thus:
‘108. Abettor.—
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1.— The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation 2.— To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
Illustrations
(a)A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b)A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3.— It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
Illustrations
(a)A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
(b)A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z’s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.
(c)A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment, provided for that offence.
(d)A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.
Explanation 4.— The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence.
Illustration
A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.
Explanation 5.— It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration
A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.”
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code talks about abetment of suicide and states that whoever abets the commission of suicide of another person, he/she shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The said Section penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide.
The question arises as to when a person is said to have instigated another. The word “instigate” means to goad or urge forward provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act” which the person otherwise would not have done.
It is well settled that in order to prove abetment, there must be mens rea. Without knowledge or intention, there cannot be any abetment. The knowledge and intention must relate to the act said to be abetted which in this case, is the act of committing suicide. Therefore, in order to constitute an abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act.
In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in AIR 2001 SC 382 this Court has anlaysed different meanings of instigation. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
“20.Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
Thus, 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 essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. West bengal reported in AIR 2010 SC 512, in the following paragraph:
“12.Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Sec-tion 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of al-leged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there be-ing any positive action proximate to the time of occur-rence on the part of theaccused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Sec-tion 306 IPC is not sustainable.”
Thus, in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the com-mission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commis-sion of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”
On a careful reading of the factual matrix of the instant case and the law regarding Section 306 of the IPC, there seems to be no proximity between allegations i.e. the applicants have abeted the deceased to commit suicide and the act of committing suicide. The only allegation is that there was demand of amount of hand loan in the nature of instalment from the deceased and therefore, deceased felt insulted and committed suicide. By no stretch of imagination it could be said that it is an abetment at the hands of the present applicants. The combine reading of Sections 306, 107 and 108 of the IPC shows the requirement is a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and in the absence of the same the charges cannot be established. There has to be clear intention to commit the offence for being held liable under Section 306 of the IPC. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is it reveals that there was demand of the instalments from the present applicants who are the officials of the Bajaj Finance Company. There is nothing on record to show that it was based on any threatening or the abuses merely demanding amount cannot be said to be an insult to the image of the deceased and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against the present applicants.
In view of the above observations the application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass following the order:-
ORDER
The Criminal Application is partly allowed.
The FIR in connection with crime No.370/2021 registered under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing S.T. No.79/2025 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-1 at Wardha is hereby quashed and set aside.
The criminal application stands disposed of in the above said terms.
Rule accordingly.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.