Case Title: Ramesh Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
The Gujarat High Court observed that a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot amount to ‘instigation’ u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The facts in brief are that one Heenaben, widow of Alpeshbhai Vinubhai Thakkar filed the impugned FIR on 11.5.2018, in which it was alleged that her husband was into the business of building construction as contractor through his firm `Sahyog Infrastructure Works’ and used to carry out construction work of Ramesh Babubhai Patel, the applicant of Misc. Criminal Application No.22198 of 2018. Babubhai is the owner of Kasata Hometech (India) Pvt. Ltd. and also handles the work of Hitesh Shah, Managing Director of Acquafil Polymers Co. Pvt. Ltd., who happens to be the applicant of Misc. Criminal Application No.14677 of 2018.
It is alleged by the complainant that both the appellants owed Rs 4,50,00,000/- and Rs 15,00,000/- respectively, to her husband. Her husband went to collect the said amount from Rameshbhai Patel but he refused and said he may do whatever he likes and if he wanted to die, he may die and he will not pay the amount requested by him. Similarly, all the debtors (appellants) refused to pay the money. Consequently, the complainant’s husband created a WhatsApp group named ‘Alvida’ and added 3 of his colleagues and narrated the entire ordeal to them, and that he cannot take it anymore and is committing suicide. Ultimately, while driving the car, the complainant and her husband consumed poison together. However, thereafter the husband of the complainant Alpesh died and the complainant was discharged from the hospital and thereafter she filed the impugned FIR, against all the 12 persons, including the present applicants.
Heavy reliance was placed on Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh and it was submitted by the Appellant’s counsel that in respect of Section 306 IPC, the top court has held that, a word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. It was further submitted that even if Rameshbhai Babubhai Patel, uttered the words like, you may do whatever you like and if you want to die, you may die, then also that itself does not constitute the ingredients of instigation. There must be a presence of mens rea, and therefore, the present applicants cannot be said to have committed offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court accepted this argument and held that the appellant was covered by Sanju’s judgment. It further observed that "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."