Chattisgarh High Court
Rohit Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 November, 2023
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 492 of 2020
Rohit Singh Thakur S/o Santosh Singh Thakur Aged About 30 Years
R/o Kapil Nagar Naya Sarkanda P.S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Housing Board Colony, Saddu Sector 8
H. No. HIF- 10, P.S. Vidhan Sabha, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through: S.H.O. Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
________________________________________________________
For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate
For State/Non-applicants : Mr. Ayaz Naved, Govt. Advocate
________________________________________________________
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order on Board
07.11.2023
1. The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
“Cr.P.C.”) against an order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the 10th
Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred
to as “trial Court”) in Criminal Case No. 07/2020 (State of
Chhattisgarh Vs. Rohit Singh Thakur), whereby the charge has been
framed against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC“).
The order passed by the trial Court has been further referred to as
“order in question”.
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
2
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that V. Meenakshi (deceased) had
a love affair with the applicant/accused for 05 years. The
applicant/accused continued to establish a physical relationship with
her on the pretext of marriage and finally, he refused to marry. Due to
this, V. Meenakshi committed suicide by hanging herself with the help
of a saree on a ceiling fan in the room of the applicant/accused on
09.04.2018. After that Crime No.126/2018 was registered for the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC at Police Station-Vidhan
Sabha, Raipur, and after the completion of the investigation, charge
sheet was filed against the accused/applicant, thereafter, after
hearing both the parties order in question has been passed.
3. Learned counsel for the accused/applicant submits that there is no
evidence of abetment, conspiracy and instigation for suicide, so no
case is made out for abetment of suicide against the applicant. In the
entire prosecution case, there is no evidence of abetment against the
applicant. The learned trial court without appreciating the material
available on record charged the applicant for the said offence which is
not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside and the applicant may be discharged of the offence. In support
of his arguments learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on
the decisions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State of
West Bengal Vs. Indrajit Kundu & Ors. Passed in Criminal Appeal
No. 2181 of 2009 on 18.10.2019. He also placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in the matters of Ashish Kumar Rajwade @
Rinku v. State of Chhattisgarh Passed in Criminal Revision No. 12
of 2022 on 13.05.2022, Vishesh Kumar Bhawte & Ors. v. State of
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
3
Chhattisgarh Passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1286 of 2019 on 24.05.2019,
Sandeep Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Passed in W.P.Cr.
No. 1075 of 2019 on 03.02.2020 & Kewal Krishnakant
Vishwakarma v. State of Chhattisgarh Passed in Criminal
Revision No. 111 of 2018 on 05.03.2019.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that it is
clear from the evidence the deceased (V. Meenakshi) was
continuously physically exploited by the applicant/accused on a false
promise of marriage and finally, he refused to marry her, due to which
she has committed suicide in the room of the accused/applicant as a
result of his abetment. Thus, there is ample evidence against the
applicant for the said offence. Therefore, the criminal revision is liable
to be dismissed. In support of his argument he place reliance in the
matters of Supdt. And Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and others reported in AIR 1980 SC
52 and in the matter of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and
Another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460.
5. The status report was obtained from the trial court. The Status report
dated 28.10.2023 received from Special Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
is evident that the matter is currently pending in that court. There was
a total of 19 witnesses in the prosecution, out of which a total of 09
Witnesses have been examined. A total of 4 Witnesses have been
given up. A total of 6 Witnesses are yet to be examined and an
attempt is being made to resolve the case as early as possible.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
4
documents available in the case with utmost circumspection.
7. The question in the present case is as to whether considering the
entire material available on record to be correct and true, a prima
facie case for the alleged commission of offence punishable under
Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant.
8. Before considering the facts of the instant case, it appears necessary
to have a look on the provisions contained under Section 306 of the
IPC, 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.”
9. Abetment has been defined in Section 107 which reads as under :-
“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; orThirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, 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.”
10. The Supreme Court has considered the scope of Sections 107 and
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
5
306 of the IPC in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of
M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 and held as under :-
“9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr.
[(1995) Supp. (3) SCC 438], the appellant was charged
for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the ground
that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have
remarked the deceased ‘to go and die’. This Court was
of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to
the deceased ‘to go and die’ were not even prima facie
enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”
11. In case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in
(2001) 9 SCC 618, the Supreme Court, while considering the
conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the IPC on the basis of
the dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate where she
had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the
deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a
quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever
she wanted to go and that thereafter, she had poured kerosene on
herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused, the Supreme Court
held as under :-
“20. ……..A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation.
21. ………If it transpires to the Court that a victim
committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite
common to the society to which the victim belonged
and such petulance, discord and differences were not
expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual
in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of
the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding
that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.”
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
6
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra
v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 had
an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this
Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite
or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the
judgment also observed that each person’s suicidability pattern is
different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. In the said judgment it is held that it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases
of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own
facts and circumstances.
13. In case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal,
reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, their Lordships of the Supreme Court
in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306, IPC, has
held as under :-
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 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 alleged 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 being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
accused which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not
sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of
Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in
the commission of the said offence, the person who is
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:280867
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 IPC.”
14. In case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another
reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated
the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 25 of the
judgment reads as under :-
“25. 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 this 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 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.”
15. In case of M. Mohan v. State represented by Deputy
Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626, the
Supreme Court has clearly held that in order to convict a person
under Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit offence, by observing as under :-
“45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this court are 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 the deceased to
commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he/she committed suicide.”
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
8
16. In case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1
SCC 433, the Supreme Court has pointed out the basic ingredients of
Section 306 of the IPC i.e. suicidal death and abetment and held that
to constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or
instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Paras 21, 28 and 29,
being relevant, are extracted below :-
“21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is
one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any
person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus
between the two, abetment being the propelling
causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision
are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To
constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of
the accused to aid or instigate the commission of
suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any
of this constituents would militate against this
indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or
omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to
actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the
offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive
mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity,
culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or
omission are the concomitant indices of abetment.
Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained
incitement for suicide.
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its
earlier pronouncement in State of West Bengal v. Orilal
Jaiswal and another [(1994) 1 SCC 73] that courts have
to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether
cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the
same had induced the person to end his/her life by
committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim
committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic
life, quite common to the society to which he or she
belonged and such factors were not expected to induce
a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such
step, the accused charged with abetment could not be
held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu
Pal v. State of W.B.[(2010) 1 SCC 707].
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:280869
29. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to
convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to
be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that
there ought to be an active or direct act leading the
deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option,
had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena v.
Vijay Kumar Mahajan [(2010) 12 SCC 190].”
17. In case of State of West Bengal v. Indrajit Kundu reported in (2019)
SCC Online SC 1201, the accused therein was charged for offence
under Section 306 of the IPC on the allegation that the accused and
his parents abused deceased and stigmatized her as call girl. The
Supreme Court quashed the charges under Section 306 of the IPC
holding that no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of the
accused persons to deceased to commit suicide and observed in
para 11 as under :-
“11. From the material placed on record, it is clear that
respondents are sought to be proceeded for charge
under Section 306/34 mainly relying on the suicide
letters written by the deceased girl and the statements
recorded during the investigation. Even according to the
case of de facto complainant, respondent Nos. 2 and 3
who are parents of first respondent shouted at the
deceased girl calling her a call-girl. This happened on
05.03.2004 and the deceased girl committed suicide on
06.03.2004. By considering the material placed on
record, we are also of the view that the present case
does not present any picture of abetment allegedly
committed by respondents. The suicide committed by
the victim cannot be said to be the result of any action
on part of respondents nor can it be said that
commission of suicide by the victim was the only course
open to her due to action of the respondents. There
was no goading or solicitation or insinuation by any of
the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. In the
case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [(1995)
Supp. (3) SCC 438 this Court while considering
utterances like “to go and die” during the quarrel
between husband and wife, uttered by husband held
that utterances of such words are not direct cause for
committing suicide. In such circumstances, in the
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:2808610
aforesaid judgment this Court held that Sessions Judge
erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial and
quashed the proceedings.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Section 107
and 306 of the IPC in case of M. Arjunan (supra) and held as under :-
“7. ………however, insulting the deceased by using
abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the
abetment of suicide………”
19. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of Section 227 and
228 of the Cr.P.C. in case of Anil Kumar Bhunja (supra) and held as
under :-
“18. It may be remembered that the case was at the
stage of framing charges; the prosecution evidence had
not yet commenced. The Magistrate had, therefore, to
consider the above question on a general consideration
of the materials placed before him by the investigating
police officer. At this stage, as was pointed out by this
Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, [AIR (1977)
SC 2018], the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence
which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and
judgment which is to be applied finally before finding
the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be
applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this stage, even a very
strong suspicion founded upon materials before the
Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive
opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the offence alleged; may justify the framing
of charge against the accused in respect of the
commission of that offence.”
20. In case of Amit Kumar (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under :-
“17. Framing of a charge is an exercise of jurisdiction
by the trial court in terms of Section 228 of the Code,
unless the accused is discharged under Section 227 of
the Code. Under both these provisions, the court is
required to consider the ”record of the case” and
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:2808611
documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the
parties, may either discharge the accused or where it
appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground
for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exists, then the Court would
be right in presuming that there is ground to proceed
against the accused and frame the charge accordingly.
This presumption is not a presumption of law as such.
The satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence
of constituents of an offence and the facts leading to
that offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such
jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie
case. There is a fine distinction between the language
of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code. Section 227 is a
expression of a definite opinion and judgment of the
Court while Section 228 is tentative. Thus, to say that at
the stage of framing of charge, the Court should form
an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of
committing an offence, is an approach which is
impermissible in terms of Section 228 of the Code.”
21. Considering the present case, in the light of the above judgments, it is
importantly revealed that the place of suicide by V. Meenakshi
(deceased) is the residence of the applicant/accused Rohit Sing
Thakur who is going to clarify this that at the last moment she was in
the room of the applicant/accused. Apart from this, according to the
evidence compiled by the police, the statement of the brother of V.
Meenakshi (deceased) V. Girish, father V. Rajkumar, maternal uncle
K. Ramanna, friend Jyoti Bagh alias Priya and friend Kavita Harpal
were given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., in which it has
clearly compiled evidence that V. Meenakshi (deceased) had a love
affair with the accused/applicant for many years and has also been
reported to have a physical relationship, but later on the
applicant/accused refused to marry while physical relations were
established on promise of marriage and after refusing to marry, V.
Neutral Citation
2023:CGHC:28086
12
Meenakshi (deceased) started living in depression and he committed
suicide during that time.
22. The crime of abetment is not a momentary, but also a crime of mental
pressure and in this case, on the basis of the evidence compiled by
the police in the investigation, prima facie it cannot be said that the
abetment of suicide against the applicant/accused is not there, but
the basis of the presumpting of the entire prosecution is available in
the opinion of the court against the applicant/accused. In addition, the
trial, in the trial court is also at the final stage. In such a situation, the
applicant/accused does not get the benefit of the cited judgments by
the applicant due to the variation of facts and in view of the nature of
the compiled evidence, no illegality or perversity is found in the order
passed by the trial court.
23. Thus, on the basis of the above discussion, this criminal revision
petition is not found acceptable and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
H.L. Sahu