- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Vishnu Prasad v. State Of M.P.
Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision petition was filed under section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 26-8-2004 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No. 213/04 directing framing of charges under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The factual narrative in the record states that Chintu @ Vivek gave a loan of Rs. 15,000/- to the deceased, Vivek Gautam, who in turn gave the same amount to the present applicant. It is alleged that the applicant did not repay this amount to the deceased; the deceased was allegedly harassed and tortured by Chintu @ Vivek in relation to the loan demand, and following pressure related to repayment the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison and left a suicide note recording these facts. On the death of Vivek Gautam a Murg was registered, and an offence under section 306 IPC was alleged against the present applicant and Chintu. A charge-sheet was submitted, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, and the trial court directed framing of charges under section 306 IPC against the applicant and another accused.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the charge-sheet and the materials before the Sessions Court disclose the ingredients of the offence under section 306 IPC, which requires proof of abetment as defined by section 107 IPC.
- Whether the trial court committed jurisdictional error in framing charges under section 306 IPC against the applicant when, in the view of the revision court, the ingredients of abetment were not made out.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The charge-sheet does not disclose the ingredients of the offence under section 306 IPC even after evaluating the entire material.
- Abetment is an essential element of section 306 IPC and must be proved by reference to section 107 IPC; unless abetment as defined in section 107 IPC is established, no case under section 306 IPC can be made out.
- Reliance on authorities (named in the record) to support the proposition that absence of ingredients of abetment precludes framing of charges under section 306 IPC.
- The other accused, Chintu @ Vivek, had already been discharged by this Court (order dated 3-11-2004 in Criminal Revision No. 1464/04); on the principle of parity the applicant should also be discharged.
Respondent State's Arguments
- The respondent's counsel supported and justified the impugned order of framing of charges and opposed the revision, seeking dismissal of the petition.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State Of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 2035 (2) | That if the ingredients of abetment as envisaged under section 107 IPC are not made out, the offence under section 306 IPC is not made out. | The court held this case to be directly applicable and supportive of the applicant's contention; it formed part of the basis for discharging the applicant. |
| Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaiji v. State of M.P, 1995 MPLJ 458(3) | That if the ingredients of abetment as envisaged under section 107 IPC are not made out, the offence under section 306 IPC is not made out. | The court treated this authority as following the same principle and applicable to the facts, supporting discharge of the applicant. |
| Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M.P, 2003 (1) MPWN 34. | That if the ingredients of abetment as envisaged under section 107 IPC are not made out, the offence under section 306 IPC is not made out. | The court considered this decision to be directly applicable and relied on it in concluding that the applicant should be discharged. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by stating the text of section 306 IPC and observed that abetment is the most important ingredient of that offence. Because abetment is not separately defined in section 306, the court referred to section 107 IPC which defines abetment and sets out three constituent forms: (1) instigation, (2) engaging in a conspiracy in which an act or omission in pursuance of that conspiracy causes the result, and (3) intentionally aiding by act or omission the doing of the thing.
The court analysed the charge-sheet and concluded that not a single ingredient of abetment, as defined in section 107 IPC, was made out on the basis of the papers. Even accepting the prosecution story for the sake of argument, the material at best disclosed loan transactions between Chintu @ Vivek and the deceased, and between the deceased and the present applicant, demands for repayment, and an altercation. The court reasoned that these facts indicate a civil cause of action to recover money by the prescribed legal procedure and amounted, at worst, to a breach of contract or dispute over payment; they did not, on the totality of facts and circumstances, indicate the commission of a criminal offence by way of abetment of suicide.
The court further observed that the authorities relied upon by the applicant were decided on the same principle that absence of the ingredients of abetment under section 107 IPC precludes a case under section 306 IPC; the court found those authorities directly applicable. The court also noted that the other accused, Chintu @ Vivek, had already been discharged, and on the principle of parity the present applicant was likewise entitled to discharge.
Holding and Implications
Revision allowed. The order framing charges is set aside and the applicant is discharged from the alleged offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Implications: The direct effect of the decision is that the trial court's order directing framing of charges under section 306 IPC against the applicant is quashed and the applicant is discharged. The opinion grounds this result on the absence, in the charge-sheet material, of any of the ingredients of abetment as defined in section 107 IPC; no broader precedent beyond this application of established principles to the facts before the court is articulated in the opinion.
1. This revision petition is directed under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (In brief “the Code”) against the order dated 26-8-2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T No. 213/04 whereby the direction for framing the charges for an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been given and in pursuance of it the same are framed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Chintu @ Vivek gave a loan of Rs. 15,000/- to Vivek Gautam (the deceased), again the said amount was given by the deceased to the present applicant and as alleged this amount was not repaid by the applicant to the deceased in his life time and was tortured and harassed in respect of demand of said loan amount by Chintu @ Vivek and due to this some unhappy incident took place in between the deceased Vivek Gautam, Chintu @ Vivek and present applicant and when the deceased was pressurized by Chintu for repayment of said loan amount and the same was not paid by the present applicant to the deceased, in such a circumstance he committed suicide by consuming poisoning substance by leaving a suicidal note in which abovesaid facts were mentioned.
3. On the death of Vivek Gautam, a Murg was registered and in continuation of it an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the present applicant and Chintu. Charge sheet was submitted after holding the investigation and same was committed to the Sessions Court where the direction for framing the charges under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against applicant and other accused was given.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that on the basis of charge sheet and its contains no ingredients of the offence are made out against the applicant even on evaluating the entire facts as enumerated in the charge sheet.
5. He further submitted that as per section 306 of Indian Penal Code till the abetment of any count as enumerated and defined in section 107 of Indian Penal Code is not proved till then no case is made out for framing the charges. For giving strength to his contention he cited the following decisions: (1) Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State Of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 2035 (2) Ved Prakash Tarachand Bhaiji v. State of M.P, 1995 MPLJ 458(3) Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M.P, 2003 (1) MPWN 34.
6. He further submitted that in the present matter the other accused Chintu @ Vivek has already been discharged by this Court vide order dated 3-11-2004 in Criminal Revision No. 1464/04 and copy of this order has also placed on record.
Page: 25On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent State supported and justified the impugned order of framing of charges and prayed for dismissal of this revision.
7. section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:
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.”
It is apparent that from the language of this section the abetment is most important ingredients of the offence and the abetment is not defined separately in that section. Therefore, section 107 of Indian Penal Code which defines abetment is referable at this stage in which the ingredients of the abetment are explained. section 107 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:
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 things, 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.”
8. It is apparent that the 3 ingredients are basic requirement for determining the case of abetment. First, the concerning person who committed suicide should be instigated by the accused for the same and secondly there should be an involvement of the accused in conspiracy whereby the deceased committed said act, and thirdly there should be intentional criminal aids to deceased at the instance of the accused either by act or by omission for doing such act.
9. When present case is examined in view of the abovesaid background then certainly not a single ingredients of the offence is made out on the basis of entire papers of the charge sheet. For the sake of argument if story of prosecution is relied as it is then it speaks that there was some loan transaction in between the Chintu @ Vivek and deceased and also in between the deceased and present applicant and there was a regular demand of repayment of loan amount and even an altercation took place in between the accused and the deceased and the loan was not repaid by the applicant to the deceased then deceased was having only cause of action to recover this amount through prescribed procedure of law, but it does not mean that if the payment has not been made and some altercation took place in between them and deceased committed suicide only on the ground of non-payment of loan amount. It appears that incident took place because of breach of contract in between them but it does not give any indication in respect of criminal offence and in the totality of the facts and circumstances and scenario of case do not reflect any circumstances in which the alleged charges could have been framed and can be sustained.
10. All above cited cases by the counsel of the applicant are also decided on the same principles that if the ingredients of offence of abetment as envisaged under section 107 of Indian Penal Code are not made out then the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is also not made out, so all the cited cases are Page: 26directly applicable to the case at hand and in view of this the applicant deserves to be discharged. I would also like to mention here if the other accused Chintu has already been discharged from the same charges then even on principle of parity the present applicant is also entitled for the same.
11. In view of the aforesaid premises I am of the considered view that the trial Court has committed a grave error or jurisdiction in framing the charges against the applicant by impugned order. Therefore, the same is hereby set aside and the applicant is discharged from the alleged offence of section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
Revision is allowed.
Revision allowed.
Alert