Subodh Kumar Sharma vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 111 of 2020.

The informant who is a resident of Gaya is at present residing in the rented premises of Anil Singh at Rajnagar, Chutia with his brother Mukesh

Kumar. Both the brothers were working in the plywood godown of the petitioner. It has been alleged that about 10 days back the informant had gone

to Patna and while he was returning on 24.06.2020 by train he received a call from his brother who asked him to arrange Rs. 1,00,000/- immediately.

His brother also told him to come to the godown of the petitioner as soon as he reaches Ranchi. Accordingly, the informant went to the godown of the

petitioner and after some time he called him inside his cabin where he saw his brother sitting and the petitioner and others were humiliating him and

were demanding return of Rs. 3,00,000/- and threatening that if Rs. 1,00,000/- is not returned by 07:00 P.M. he was to face dire consequences. The

informant was asked to bring the credentials of his brother and when he went home he was accompanied by the accomplices of the petitioner.

However, the documents could not be found and instead the documents of Pankaj Kumar were brought to the godown. On being asked the brother of

the informant brought the credentials of his brother as well as his own. The informant and his brother were released by the petitioner and his

accomplices and both went home. The brother of the informant went to sleep in the room of Pankaj Kumar. When the informant and one Akshay

went to the said room it was not opened even after repeated knocking and on breaking the glass of the window they found the brother of the

informant hanging from a ceiling fan.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Chutia P.S. Case No. 111 of 2020 was instituted for the offence punishable u/s 306/34 of the I.P.C.

It has been submitted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence u/s 306 of the I.P.C. is made out since the petitioner was

not instrumental in abetting the brother of the informant to commit suicide. It has further been stated that the petitioner had merely asked the informant

and his brother to return Rs. 3,00,000/- as they in connivance had sold plywood worth Rs. 10,00,000/-. Mr. Sinha, furthers his argument by stating that

nothing can be deduced to suggest that the petitioner was aware that his acts would drive the brother of the informant to commit suicide. In fact the

petitioner merely wanted the deceased to compensate him for the loss suffered by him on account of the acts of the deceased as well as the

informant. It has been submitted that it was the petitioner who let go of both the brothers to arrange Rs. 1,00,000/- and there was no intention on the

part of the petitioner in abetting the commission of suicide by the brother of the informant.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

The petitioner has been accused of abetting the commission of suicide by the brother of the informant. Whether the act of the petitioner as

demonstrated in the First Information Report and a video recorded by the deceased prior to his death would tantamount to an offence committed

within the four corners of Section 107 of the I.P.C. and Section 306 of the I.P.C. is the issue which is to be considered.

In the case of ""Ude Singh and Others versus State of Haryana"", reported in (2019) 17 SCC 301, it was held as follows:

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 behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court

would be looking for cogent and 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 the 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 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.

Reference has been made by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner to the case of ""Arnab Manoranjan Goswami versus State of

Maharashtra and Others"" reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 964, wherein various judgments considering Section 107 of the I.P.C. and Section 306 of

the I.P.C. have been considered.

The question of abetment cannot be encompassed by a strait jacket formula. The same depends on the factual aspects of each case. Proximity of

commission of suicide with the act of an accused, deliberate instigation or intentionally aiding or provoking the victim to take such a drastic step would

be some of the ingredients constituting abetment. However, as stated above the question of abetment varies from case to case depending on the

factual aspects of each case.

In the present case, the brother of the informant was insinuated of committing misappropriation in sale of plywood. When the informant had gone to

the godown of the petitioner he had seen his brother inside a cabin sitting on the floor and the petitioner and his accomplices surrounding him and

demanding Rs. 3,00,000/- from him. A towel was also put over the CCTV which was installed there. It was, therefore, a pre-mediated plan devised by

the petitioner to heap humiliation and torture upon the brother of the informant in order to get back the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The accused persons

had also snatched the personal documents of the informant and his brother as well as cash of Rs. 1,000/- and SIM etc. They had also demanded that

Rs. 1,00,000/- should be returned by 07:00 P.M. The humiliation meted out to the brother of the informant and the ominous nature of threats were

indeed tough to withstand especially for a person with a fragile mental set up. If indeed some misappropriation had been caused by the informant

and/or his brother the petitioner could have approached the Police but he chose to take the law in his own hands by attempting to browbeat the

deceased into subjugation and the deceased punctured with such ignominy committed suicide. The deceased had also prepared a video prior to his

death blaming the petitioner for his end. No doubt the act of the petitioner was not continuous but it was of such a nature that a solitary indictment of

the deceased was enough for him to take the extreme step. Moreover, the act of committing suicide was in close proximity to the humiliation and

lowering of self-esteem suffered by the deceased.

Such fact situation, therefore, does not implore this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This application accordingly stands rejected.