Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hemant Rochwani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
Bench: Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar
1
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR
ON THE 23rd JANUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2270 of 2024
HEMANT ROCHWANI
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH P.S.CITY KOTWALI
DISTRICT MANDSAUR
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Sirpurkar Sr. Advocate wth Shri Yogesh Gupta -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Apoorva Joshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Reserved on : 17.01.2025
Pronounced on : 23.01.2025
ORDER
This criminal revision having been heard and reserved for order, coming on
for pronouncement this day, Justice Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar pronounced the
following:
2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
This criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
Cr.P.C is filed assailing the order dated 15.04.2024 passed by VI Additional
Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in S.T. No. 75/2023 whereby the learned trial
Court framed the charges against the petitioner for commission of offence
punishable u/S 306 of IPC.
2. The exposition of facts giving rise to present revision petition is as
under:
As per the case of prosecution, Bhagwan Das Kotwani reported to P.S.
Kotwali , Mandsaur on 04.04.2023 that on 29.03.2023 around 1:30 p.m., his
daughter Vaishali went to terrace of the house. After sometime, they heard a
loud noise. Vaishali was found lying on the ground unconscious. She had
sustained head injury. She was taken to Siddhi Vinayak Hosptial where doctor
declared her dead. On 01.04.2023, his younger daughter opened the mobile
phone of Vaishali. There was a message reflecting the reason for her death. It
was stated in the message that Ajay had taken all the gold from her and lost
entire money in betting. Ajay had taken some cash amount also on loan,
which he is not returning. Ajay is harassing her. Therefore, she is committing
suicide. Ajay and his father Hemant Rochwani had harassed Vaishali,
therefore, she has committed suicide by jumping from the terrace. On such
allegations, P.S. Mandsaur registered FIR at Crime No. 184/2023 for offence
3NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
punishable u/S 306 and 34 of IPC against Ajay Rochwani and Hemant
Rochwani. Ajay was arrested on 07.04.2024. Hemant was arrested on
14.03.2024. The mobile phone containing the message was seized. The
mobile phone of Ajay was also seized. Relevant recoveries and seizures were
made. On completion of investigation, final report was submitted. The matter
was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. Learned VI Additional Sessions
Judge, Mandsaur framed the charge for offence punishable u/S 306 of IPC
against Hemant and Ajay Rochwani vide order dated 15.04.2024.
3. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 15.04.2024 is assailed in
present petition on the following grounds:-
(i) There is no material available on record which implicates the
petitioner/accused – Hemant in the alleged offence.
(ii) Initially, there was no allegation immediately after death of
Vaishali. Later, on the basis of messages contained in the mobile
phone of deceased, it was alleged that deceased has given cash and
gold ornaments to accused – Ajay, who was not returning the same
therefore, Vaishali had committed suicide by jumping off from the
terrace of the house.
(iii) There is no evidence that the petitioner was in contact with the
deceased or he has received any cash or ornaments from the deceased.
4
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
There is no evidence that petitioner instigated the deceased to commit
suicide. The alleged offence is not made out.
On these grounds, it is requested that the impugned order of framing of
charge dated 15.04.2024 and the charge against the petitioner in S.T. No.
75/2023 be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to the grounds mentioned
in the petition submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in this matter
merely for the reason that he is father of the main accused – Ajay. There is no
evidence, at all, to implicate the petitioner for abetment of suicide by
Vaishali. The mobile communication or the chat message recovered during
investigation does not reflect communication between the deceased and the
petitioner – Hemant.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the criminal revision
and submits that the material on record, prima-facie shows involvement of the
petitioner in the alleged offence alongwith the main accused Ajay.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case-diary
and record.
7. Section 306 of IPC provides that punishment for abetment to commit
suicide. Section 107 of IPC defines abetment as under:-
5
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
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.
The explanation to Section 107 IPC which defines instigation provides, thus:-
Explanation 1.– A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful
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.
8. In case of Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh
(2010) 1 SCC 750, the Apex Court opined as under :-
17. 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 this act must have
been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
9. This Court in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. reported in ILR
(2011) MP 1089 considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR
2002 SC 1998 and held as under :-
10. Considering these legal aspect this is to be observed that whether applicants
have had same knowledge that deceased would commit suicide. As per the
prosecution case when deceased was going with his father. Applicants restrained
deceased and his father Jagdish and abused and threatened both of them, hence, it
cannot be assumed that applicants had knowledge that one of them particularly
deceased will commit suicide. When act of abusing and threatening was alleged to
be done with deceased as well as his father, so it cannot be said that applicants had
knowledge or intention that deceased should commit suicide. There is no evidence
that they provoked, incited or encouraged deceased to commit suicide. It is also not
alleged that when applicants threatened to kill the deceased and his father Jagdish
6
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
they were armed with some weapons. So it cannot be presumed that deceased was
so frightened that he had no option left except committing suicide and was
compelled to do so.
10. In case of Nipun Aneja and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2024
INSC 767 , the Apex Court opined as under :-
―22. The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an
endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is
anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences
of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such
intention can be read into or gathered only after a fullfledged trial. The problem
is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We
believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends
on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had
the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a
full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the
genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role
played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large
the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations
itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law
governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part
of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of
abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand
and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased
and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First
Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and
the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom
allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put
to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.‖
11. Similarly, In case of Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
2025 INSC 76, the Apex Court opined as under :-
20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated the higher
threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section 108 read with
Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be attracted. They however
seem to have followed more in the breach. Section 306 IPC appears to be casually
and too readily resorted to by the police. While the persons involved in genuine
cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be
deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the
distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the
deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of
the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced
7NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not,
without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time
the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under
Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally
untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution and
circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically
framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown
utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.
12. The principle flowing from these judgments is that the overt act of
accused must be of such a nature that the victim had no option but to commit
suicide. Mere allegation of harassment or causing distress to the deceased
would not suffice to bring the conduct within the ambit of incitement or
instigation, unless there is such an 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 alleged incident. Instigation means ―to goad, urge,
provoke, incite or encourage to do act‖. There is no positive or direct
allegation that the petitioner intended death of Vaishali or he had goaded,
urged, provoked, incited or encouraged Vaishali to commit suicide.
13. The whatsapp message allegedly recovered from phone of deceased
states that :
―Mai Viashali Hotwani suicide karne jaa rahi hu maine Ajay ko mere ghr
ke sara gold nikal ke diya hai usne sate mei ghar ke sare paise kahatm
kiye hai Mustafa sir ke 1 lakh bhi usi hi ko diya hai mei bhout pareshan hu
woh mujhe de nai raha hai aur mujhe majbooran yeh kadam uthana pad
8NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
rha hai mei chati hu ki mere jane ke baad use bhout kadi saza di jaye meri
galti ki saza mei apne apko de rhi hu.‖
14. Thus, there is no allegation that the petitioner – Hemant was also
involved in transaction between the deceased – Vaishali and accused – Ajay.
There is no evidence of communication between Vaishali and the petitioner –
Hemant. The family members of deceased have belatedly leveled general,
omnibus and bald allegations that Vaishali was distressed due to conduct of
Ajay and his father – Hemant in not returning the cash and gold jewellery.
15. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC was not prima facie made out
against the petitioner/accused – Hemant Rochwani. The learned trial Court
committed patent error in framing charge against the petitioner for offence
punishable u/S 306 of IPC. Thus, interference in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction is needed to ensure propriety of proceedings and to prevent abuse
of process of court. (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.
reported in AIR 2002 SC 199 ;Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West
Bengal, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707 and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 964 also
relied).
9
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:1747
16. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 passed in
Sessions Trial No.75/2024 by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge,
District Mandsaur (M.P.) and the charge for offence punishable under Section
306 of IPC is hereby quashed with regard to petitioner – Hemant
Rochwani only. The petitioner stands discharged.
17. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.
C.C. as per rules.
(SANJEEV S KALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
sh
SEHAR Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE,
ou=BENCH AT INDORE,
HASEE
2.5.4.20=900ec6fc757798eaeb3df7a
32860bd3298415a4d1c2d91436213f
2568c8f27da, postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=E7DBBA955B262C04B
8413251CE7FB6F0B7DBA610C57F15
N
59C08BF6C6F5DD40D4, cn=SEHAR
HASEEN
Date: 2025.01.23 18:26:30 +05’30’
[ad_1]
Source link