Lallu alias Sharad Kumar vs State of M.P.

S.P. Khare, J.—Appellant Lallu alias Sharad Kumar has been convicted u/s 306, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 500/-. He has also been convicted u/s 323, IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.

After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides and after scrutiny of the evidence on record this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 306, IPC is not sustainable. Conviction of the appellant u/s 306, IPC is based mainly on the suicide-note Ex. P-6 which is said to have been recovered from the pocket of deceased Shyamlal after a few days of the commission of the suicide by him. This suicide note was seized by the police as per seizure memo Ex. P-12 on 3-3-1994. According to this suicide note accused Lallu kicked Shyamlal on his testicles and therefore on account of pain and humiliation Shyamlal committed suicide. The incident of kicking is said to have taken place 15 days before the commission of suicide by Shyamlal. No report of that incident was lodged nor Shyamlal was medically examined. From the suicide note it is difficult to hold that accused Lallu abetted the commission of suicide by Shyamlal. The accused cannot be said to have instigated or aided the commission of suicide by Shyamlal. The act of kicking of the deceased by the accused 15 days ago could not ordinarily drive the deceased to commit suicide. Even if it is assumed that the deceased felt humiliated and insulted by the act of the accused, it was not enough for him to bring an end to his life. He could have reported the matter to the police and the accused could have been punished for causing hurt to the deceased. It appears that the deceased was hyper-sensitive person and for that reason he brought an end to his life. The accused cannot be held liable for instigating or aiding the commission of suicide by the accused.

Recently the Supreme Court in Sanju v. State of M.P. 2002 AIR SCW 2035, has held that the word ''instigate'' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mem rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. In this case some earlier decisions of the Supreme Court have been cited. One of them is Mahendra Singh and Another, Gayatribai Vs. State of M.P., in which also it has been held that conviction of the appellant for an offence u/s 306, IPC is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. So was the decision in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, .

In view of the above legal position the conviction of the appellant u/s 306, IPC in the present case must be set aside. So far as the conviction u/s 323, IPC is concerned, that is unassailable. Accused Lallu voluntarily caused injury on the testicles of Shyamlal. That is established from the suicide note and also from the evidence of Premlal (P.W. 7), Leela Bai (P.W. 8) and Ravi Kumar (P.W. 11). Therefore, conviction of appellant u/s 323, IPC is maintained. He has remained in jail for about four months. Therefore, sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months for this offence imposed upon the appellant by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already spent by him in jail.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 306, IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of this charge. His conviction u/s 323, IPC is maintained and his sentence of imprisonment is reduced as mentioned above.