AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
Heard.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
The present Application is preferred by the Applicant for quashing of the First Information Report in connection with Crime No.163/2022 registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No. 325/2025 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikli, District Buldana.
The Informant has lodged the report on 15.04.2022 alleging that the Informant had taken a hand loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the Applicant for paying premium of Bachat Gat. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- was lent by the Applicant to the Informant and his wife and for return of hand loan amount Rs.700/- per day required to be paid. It is also alleged that, on 12.04.2022 since morning the Applicant was calling the Informant for payment of the loan amount. Therefore, the Informant and his wife had gone to their nephew Yogesh Shevare to seek financial help but they could not get it and while returning to their village, they received a call from the Applicant and the Applicant threatened them that if the amount is not paid, they should not enter Amdapur Village. Being disturbed, the Informant and his wife came to Chikhli, purchased rat poison from the market and consumed the same. In the said incident, the wife succumbed to death. Due to the said incident, the offence came to be registered against the Applicant alleging that he has abeted the deceased to commit suicide.
Heard Mr. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant, who submitted that by no stage of imagination it can be said that, the Applicant has abeted the deceased to commit suicide merely because he has demanded the amount which he has given by lending the same to the Informant, is not sufficient to say that it was an abetment at the hands of the present Applicant. He submitted that, the offence of abetment is defined in Section 306 as well as Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code.
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 Sections penalizes abetment of commission of suicide and a question arises as to when is a person 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, which is absent in the present case. In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed.
Per contra, learned APP and learned Counsel for the Non-applicant No.2 strongly opposed for the same and submitted that, considering the allegation levelled against the present Applicant that he was insisting to pay the amount and was charging the interest, which is illegal and there was no alternative before the deceased but to commit the suicide, and therefore, the present Applicant is responsible for the death of the deceased. In view of that, the Application deserves to be rejected.
On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the investigation papers and the recitals of the FIR, the allegation against the present Applicant is that the Informant has taken hand loan of Rs. 20,000/- from the present Applicant and the Informant agreed to pay Rs. 700/- per day to the present Applicant against repayment of the amount. It is further alleged that, on 12.04.2022 the Informant and his wife were receiving the consistent calls from the present Applicant, and therefore, they went to their relative to arrange the amount but could not arrange and the Applicant has threatened them that if the amount is not paid he would not allow them to enter into the village as there was no alternative, therefore the deceased has committed suicide.
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, non-compoundable 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 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 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 commit-ting 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 conse-quence 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 insti-gates 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.
It is well settled that in order to amount to 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 abetment, there must be direct incitement to do culpable act.
In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, reported in AIR 2001 SC 383, this Court has analyzed different meanings of “instigation”. The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:
“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.”
The essentials of Section 306 IPC were elucidated by this Court in M.Mohan vs. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238, as under:
“43.This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
44.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.”
Thus, in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission 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 commission 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 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thus, a direct influence or an oblique impact with the acts or utterances of the accused caused or created in the mind of the deceased and which draw him to suicide will not be sufficient to constitute offence of abetment of suicide. A fetal impulse or ill-fated thoughts of the suicide, however unfortunate and touchy it may be, cannot fray the fabric of the provision contained in Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code specific abetment as contemplated by Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Thus, combine reading of Sections 306, 107, and 108 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 conviction cannot be sustained. There has to be a clear intention to commit the offence for being held liable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case and even accepting the case as it is, it reveals that the amount was taken by the Informant from the present Applicant and there was a demand. There is nothing on record to show that, the insistence was such a nature that there was no alternative before the deceased but to commit suicide.
While dealing with the situation on the basis of the facts of this case and on perusal of the entire investigation papers, admittedly the offence is not made out against the present Applicant to show that due to the abetment at the hands of the present Applicant, the deceased has committed suicide. In view of that, the Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order.
O R D E R
Criminal Application is allowed.
ii The First Information Report in connection with Crime No.163/2022 registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing R.C.C. No. 325/2025 (now Sessions Case No.92/2025), is hereby quashed and set aside against the present Applicant.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Fees of the learned Appointed Counsel be quantified as per rules.
Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.