2002 JTR(SC) 596
2002 AIR(SC) 1998 ; 2002 AIR(SCW) 2035 ; 2002 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 956 ; 2002 2 BLJR 1185 ; 2002 2 CCR(SC) 189 ; 2002 2 CriCC 647 ; 2002 CrLJ 2796 ; 2002 2 EastCrC(SC) 187 ; 2002 2 JCC 847 ; 2002 2 JLJ 275 ; 2002 Supp1 JT 248 ; 2002 2 RCR(Cri) 687 ; 2002 4 RLW(Raj) 551 ; 2002 4 Scale 270 ; 2002 5 SCC 371 ; 2002 SCC(Cri) 1141 ; 2002 3 SCR 668 ; 2002 1 UJ 769 ; 2002 2 WLC 36 ; 2002 3 Supreme 650
2002(3) Supreme 650
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
M.B. Shah and H.K. Sema, JJ.
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar -Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6656 of 2001)
Decided on 1-5-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, J. Bey and Parmanand Gaur, Advocates.
For the Respondent : B.S. Banthia, Advocate.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Even if the prosecution story that the appellant (brother in law "sala") of deceased did tell the deceased (husband of the sister of appellant) to go and die" that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation" for mens rea of offence under Section 306 IPC. The suicide note also does not establish ingredients of abetment which is essential for offence under Section 306 IPC.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.482
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.107, S.306
(A) The appeal pertains to an order framing a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 107 of the same Code, in the context of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 107 defines abetment and requires the presence of mens rea, such as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, going beyond mere presence, words, or a quarrel. Section 306 presumes abetment of suicide only when the prosecution proves the accused intentionally instigated, conspired, or aided the commission of suicide. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to quash an order or proceedings where it appears that the exercise of jurisdiction is without jurisdiction or is illegal or manifestly unjust.
(B) Key legal principles include that incitement or instigation requires a clear intention to cause the offence, words used in a fit of anger or emotion without a premeditated design do not constitute abetment, and the mental element (mens rea) is essential. A suicide occurring after a quarrel, without proximate causal connection, does not attract Section 306, and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of abetment beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
The appellant is the brother of the deceased's wife, who had married the deceased in 1993 and faced continuous ill-treatment. Around July 1998, the appellant advised the deceased to reconcile and warned the deceased's family of filing a complaint under Section 498A if harassment continued. On 25th July 1998, an altercation occurred, with alleged abusive language. The deceased was found dead on 27th July 1998, and a suicide note indicated the deceased held the appellant responsible. The prosecution relied on a witness statement placing abusive language, but the note and the wife's statement revealed the deceased's depressed state and excessive drinking.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the deceaseds death was not proximately connected to the alleged abusive words, as there was a two-day gap and the deceased had ample time to reflect. The suicide note and evidence of a depressed, frustrated mindset indicated the death resulted from the deceaseds own conduct rather than instigation. The court found the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC absent and the prosecution story unreliable.
Issues:
Whether the accused could be held liable for an offence under Section 306 IPC for alleged abusive language and a purported threat to file a complaint, in the absence of clear intent to instigate suicide, and whether the High Court was correct in upholding the charge under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that mere words, even if abusive, uttered during a quarrel without premeditated intent to instigate, and a suicide occurring after a significant temporal gap, do not satisfy the stringent mens rea requirements of Section 107 IPC. Consequently, the charge of abetment to suicide could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded.
Result:
The charge-sheet dated 2nd July 2001 and the impugned High Court order were quashed, the appellant was acquitted, and the bail bond and sureties were discharged.
(A) The appeal pertains to an order framing a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 107 of the same Code, in the context of proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 107 defines abetment and requires the presence of mens rea, such as instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid, going beyond mere presence, words, or a quarrel. Section 306 presumes abetment of suicide only when the prosecution proves the accused intentionally instigated, conspired, or aided the commission of suicide. Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to quash an order or proceedings where it appears that the exercise of jurisdiction is without jurisdiction or is illegal or manifestly unjust.
(B) Key legal principles include that incitement or instigation requires a clear intention to cause the offence, words used in a fit of anger or emotion without a premeditated design do not constitute abetment, and the mental element (mens rea) is essential. A suicide occurring after a quarrel, without proximate causal connection, does not attract Section 306, and the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of abetment beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
The appellant is the brother of the deceased's wife, who had married the deceased in 1993 and faced continuous ill-treatment. Around July 1998, the appellant advised the deceased to reconcile and warned the deceased's family of filing a complaint under Section 498A if harassment continued. On 25th July 1998, an altercation occurred, with alleged abusive language. The deceased was found dead on 27th July 1998, and a suicide note indicated the deceased held the appellant responsible. The prosecution relied on a witness statement placing abusive language, but the note and the wife's statement revealed the deceased's depressed state and excessive drinking.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the deceaseds death was not proximately connected to the alleged abusive words, as there was a two-day gap and the deceased had ample time to reflect. The suicide note and evidence of a depressed, frustrated mindset indicated the death resulted from the deceaseds own conduct rather than instigation. The court found the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC absent and the prosecution story unreliable.
Issues:
Whether the accused could be held liable for an offence under Section 306 IPC for alleged abusive language and a purported threat to file a complaint, in the absence of clear intent to instigate suicide, and whether the High Court was correct in upholding the charge under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court determined that mere words, even if abusive, uttered during a quarrel without premeditated intent to instigate, and a suicide occurring after a significant temporal gap, do not satisfy the stringent mens rea requirements of Section 107 IPC. Consequently, the charge of abetment to suicide could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded.
Result:
The charge-sheet dated 2nd July 2001 and the impugned High Court order were quashed, the appellant was acquitted, and the bail bond and sureties were discharged.
JUDGMENT
Sema, J.-Leave granted.
Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned Senior counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. B.S. Banthia, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.
2. The appellant felt aggrieved by an order dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, in sessions trial No. 469 of 1998 whereby the appellant has been charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge before the High Court without any result, hence the appeal.
3. Basic facts may be noted.
4. Appellant is the brother of Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased Chander Bhushan @ Babloo. It is stated that the marriage between the sister of the appellant and the deceased took place in 1993. It is also stated that immediately after marriage she was subjected to continuous ill-treatment by the deceased and the family members forcing her to live separately along with her husband and children for about a year. Thereafter, she went to her parents house and started living with her brother-the appellant herein. About two months prior to the incident, the appellant advised the deceased to take his sister back to her matrimonial house and treat her properly. On 25th July, 1998 (crucial date), it is stated that the appellant visited the place of the parents of the deceased and pleaded with them that his sister should be rehabilitated in the matrimonial home and should not be physically ill-treated or harassed. It is also alleged that on that day the appellant also said to have threatened the parents of the deceased that if they do not mend their behaviour towards his sister, he would be compelled to resort to filing a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, to which the parents of the deceased expressed helplessness as the deceased Chander Bhushan had been living separately from them. It is further stated that on this story being narrated to the deceased by the mother of the deceased asking him to bring back his wife to avoid any police case against them, the deceased went to the house of the parents of the appellant followed by a quarrel between them. Thereafter, the deceased returned alone and told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words.
5. On the next date i.e. 27th July 1998, the deceased was found hanging with a rope by neck on the raft of his house and he was found dead. The deceased also left a suicide note on a stray piece of wrapping paper. The autopsy on the body of the deceased was held on 27th July, 1998 itself and it was revealed that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging, within 24 hours. The investigating officer recorded statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge-sheet and a charge was framed on 2nd July, 2001 against the appellant for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C.
6. Section 107 I.P.C. defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, 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.
7. Before we advert further, at this stage we may notice a few decisions of this Court, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this case.
8. 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.
9. In Mahendra Singh v. Sate of M.P., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband s elder brother s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
This Court, considering the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased.
10. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which 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 this Court said:
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
11. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased to go and die . For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr. P.C. when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him to go and die . Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased to go and die , that itself does not constitute the ingredient of instigation . The word instigate denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensured by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25th July, 1998 drived the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July , 1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below.
12. The next and most important material is the suicide note left by the deceased. The translated copy is annexed to this appeal as annexure P-1. It is extracted:
SUICIDE NOTE
Danik Bhaskar
581 South Civil Lines
Jabalpur.
Agent Name Sengar New Agency
Place Goshalpur
No. of copies 409 Date
Name of the person who prepared label
Gosalpur Sengar has threatened to report under Dowry demand and threatened to involve family members due to this I am writing in my full senses that Sanjay Sangar is responsible for my death. Sanjay Sangar also Mukraj commander Loota Tha Sanjay ki.
Sengar New Agency
Gosalpur
I am threatened therefore I am dying Sangar Gosalpur
My name Chander Bhushan Singh Gouram
Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam
Babloo Goutam
In my senses
Sengar responsible for my death.
My Moti
Darling my, Moti. You look after my Chukho. My darling Moti Neelam Sengar @ Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam Gandhigram Budghagar.
Sengar is responsible for my death.
Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death
Sanjay Sengar is responsible for my death
Chander Bhushan Singh Goutam Gandhigram Budhagar".
13. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife-Smt. Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not a handy work of a man with sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigation Officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26th July, 1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25th July, 1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26th July, 1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken pace on 25th July, 1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunkened condition. It is a common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25th July, 1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.
14. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The charge-sheet dated 2nd July, 2001, framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, in Sessions Trial No. 469 of 1998 for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and the order of the High Court under challenge are hereby quashed.
15. The appellant is on bail. His surety and bail bond shall stand discharged.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed.
****************