2025 INSC 76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE ABHAY
S. OKA, J. AND HON’BLE K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.)
MAHENDRA AWASE
Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH
Respondent
Criminal
Appeal No. 221 OF 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11868 OF 2023)-Decided
on 17-01-2025
Criminal
(A)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 227, 228 - Penal Code, 1860, Section 306
– Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 108 read with Section
45 - Framing of charge - Abetment of suicide - 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 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 - Held
that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant - This is so even if we take the prosecution’s case on a
demurrer and at its highest - A reading of the suicide note reveals that the
appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the
deceased and advanced to ‘R’ - It could not be said that the appellant by
performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his
employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide -
Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised hereinabove
- Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to
instigate the commission of suicide - It could certainly not be said that the
appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no
other option except to commit suicide - Viewed from the armchair of the
appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent to
leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide - FIR has also
been lodged after a delay of two months and twenty days - Held that case against the appellant is
groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306 - Appellant liable to
be discharged from proceedings in Sessions Case and the proceedings liable to
be quash and set aside.
(Para 18, 19 and 21)
(B)
Penal Code, 1860, Section 306 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section
108 read with Section 45 - Framing of charge - Abetment of suicide
–
Held that 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 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.
(Para
20)
JUDGMENT
K.V. Viswanathan, J.
:- Leave
granted.
2.
The present appeal calls in question the judgment and order dated 25.07.2023 in
Criminal Revision No. 1142 of 2023 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Indore. By the said judgment, the High Court declined the prayer of the
appellant to discharge him from the offences punishable under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) and maintained the charges
as framed by the Trial Court on 28.02.2023.
Brief
Facts:
3.
On 31.12.2022 a First Information Report was registered at PS Maingaon on the
information of Dharmendra. The informant stated that his brother Bhagwan Singh
was residing near his house along with his son Ranjeet Chauhan; that on
11.10.2022 Ranjeet had left home around 10 AM on his Motorcycle to go to the
farm; that when he did not return home till around 2 PM, he called him, but he
got no response; that his nephews - Shivam Chauhan and Kuldeep Chauhan started
searching for Ranjeet and while searching they went towards Rangaon. There they
found a Motorcycle parked on the side of the road and when they searched
nearby, around 6 PM in the evening, they found Ranjeet hanging on a rope noose
from a tree on the bank of Borgaon drain about 100 mtrs. away from the
Motorcycle. The informant further stated that he informed Bhagwan Singh - father
of Ranjeet Singh.
4.
That during inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C, a written suicide- note
and a mobile were found. The suicide-note mentioned about the deceased being
harassed by the appellant - Mahendra Awase.
Statements
of witnesses were recorded. A chargesheet came to be filed on 21.01.2023. The
chargesheet mentioned that the appellant had committed offences punishable
under Section 306 of the IPC.
5.
The suicide note reads as under:-
“I Ranjeet Singh s/o
Bhagwan Singh Chauhan "illegible" taking my life on my own because
life will help me in taking my problems for which I have to take this step.
I did loan for one
Ritesh Malakar in which as witness my cheques were attached for reason of which
Awase, person who give and take loan is harassing much for this reason I have
to take this step.
Sd/-
Ranjeet
Singh
10.10.2022”
[Emphasis
supplied]
Apart
from the suicide note, it further transpires that statements of witnesses were
recorded to the effect that the deceased was staying disturbed for the past few
months and when asked he had mentioned to them that Mahendra Awase, the
appellant was harassing him with respect to repayment of a loan which one
Ritesh Malakar had taken from Shree Saakh Cooperative Society Limited,
Khargone.
6.
It further transpires that the forensic laboratory had confirmed certain audio
recordings of the conversation between the deceased and the appellant.
Transcripts of the conversation were also produced.
7.
The transcripts are extracted hereinbelow, as is available from the Panchnama:-
“Speaker 1: Deceased
Shumbam @ Ranjit son of Bhagwan Singh Chauhan, caste Rajput, aged 26 years,
resident of Temla.
Speaker 2: Mahender
Awasey, resident of Janki Nagar, Khargone.
The data of mobile
obtained from the Cyber Forensic Unit, Khargone is perused and protected in
aforesaid Pen Drive (DGNET 24 GB, F22) in a Lab Case 80-22>2022-12-05.
16-22-36>Lab Case 80-22 Exbt. A> files>recorded Audio in the file
being AUD-20221010- WA0007 which is prepared on 10.10.2022 at 07:26 AM being of
151 KB before the aforementioned Panchas and transcripted thereof as under:
|
Speaker-
1 |
Sir
in the evening, in the evening, let me go at least. |
|
Speaker-
2 |
Let’s
go. (*********) abusive language. Now let me know whether we are to go in the
evening? Yes, we are to go in the evening. Bhaiya since when you are to go.
When I made a phone call only then you realized that we are to go in the
evening. |
|
Speaker-
1 |
No,
he has met me two times while on the way. Now, I may go to his home and only
there I may convince him. What else can I do I also told him that I have
nothing more. Dear I have only 30-35 thousand rupees. You may give him and
get freed. |
|
Speaker-
2 |
What
are you narrating me. From where you may give money, (*******) abusive
language. |
|
Speaker-
1 |
Yes,
Sir. |
|
Speaker-
2 |
Tell
him I have no concern with it. |
|
Speaker-
1 |
You
have got it and now you may return. That is all. |
|
Speaker-
2 |
Listen,
if you are not giving today then you may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with penalty in
the office at 11:00 AM. If you cannot, I am not in your favour. If you don’t
want to talk then I will tell my authority. |
|
Speaker-
1 |
No,
No. Sir it is our duty. |
|
Speaker-
2 |
You
will pay money tomorrow because you had committed it. |
|
Speaker-
1 |
Yes,
Sir. |
|
Speaker-
2 |
Otherwise,
I will come to the Pump.You can run up to when you can. |
[Emphasis
supplied]
Specimen
Transcript
Speaker-2-Name of
suspect/accused Mahender son of Ghanshyam Awasey, aged 27 years, resident of
Janki Nagar, Khargone.
|
Speaker-2
|
Let's
go. (****) abusive language. Now let me know whether we are to go in the
evening? Yes, we are to go in the evening. Bhaiya since when you are to go.
When I made a phone call only then you realized that we are to go in the
evening. |
|
Speaker-2
|
What
are you narrating me? From where you may give money, (***) abusive language. |
|
Speaker-2
|
Tell
him I have no concern with it. |
|
Speaker-2
|
Listen,
if you are not giving today then you may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with penalty in
the office at 11:00 A.M. If you cannot, I am not in your favour. If you don't
want to talk then I will tell my authority. |
|
Speaker-2
|
You
will pay money tomorrow because you had committed it. Speaker-2 Otherwise, I
will come to the Pump.You can run up to when you can. |
|
Speaker-2
|
Thereafter,
I will come home. The neighbourers will hear the story. I will put banners at
your house. That’s it. |
|
Speaker-2
|
You
have signed the file indicating that this person has obtained the loan and
now is not traceable. You may come and meet me and see that some people have
written. If I may get it written which will not be right. The modesty of your
parents will also hurt. |
|
Speaker-2
|
Then,
you may make payment of money. (****) abusive language. You may return my
money. That’s all. You go and arrange. |
[Emphasis
supplied]
8.
The appellant prayed for discharge from the proceedings. However, based on the
material available, on 28.02.2023, the First Additional Sessions Judge,
Khargone framed the following charges.
“On 11.10.2022 between
about 10:00 hrs to 18:00 hrs and before that, you mentally tortured the
deceased Ranjit Chauhan at Rangaon Road, on the banks of Borgaon drain, Temla,
under District Khargone, Police Station Maingaon, and forced him to commit
suicide due to which he committed suicide by hanging himself. Your said act is
punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.”
9.
Aggrieved by the order framing charge, the appellant approached the High Court
by filing a revision but the same has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
10.
We have heard Shri Pardeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and
Shri Abhimanyu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the
records of the case.
11. Section
306 of the IPC reads as under:-
“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.”
12. Section
107 of the IPC 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; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” As is clear from the plain language
of the Sections to attract the ingredient of Section 306, the accused
should have abetted the commission of a suicide. A person abets the doing of a
thing who 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.
13.
In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438],
the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased
thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:-
"3. ...Those
words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment
between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter.
The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that
these words would be carried out in all events. …"
14. In Madan
Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held
that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific
abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the
accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as
a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention
of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide
is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, this
Court 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.
[Emphasis
supplied]
16.
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 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.
17. M.
Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 followed Ramesh Kumar vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held as under:-
41. This Court in SCC
para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of
"instigation". Para 20 reads as under: (SCC p. 629)
“20. Instigation is to
goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to
incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is
not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued
course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have
been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
In the said case this
Court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available
on record wherefrom an inference of the appellant- accused having abetted
commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily
be drawn.”
Thereafter, this Court
in Mohan (supra) held:-
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.”
[Emphasis
supplied]
18.
As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of instigation the
accused by his act or omission or by a continued course of conduct should have
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. It was also held that a word uttered in a fit of
anger and emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation.
19.
Applying the above principle to the facts of the present case, we are convinced
that there are no grounds to frame charges under Section 306 IPC
against the appellant. This is so even if we take the prosecution’s case on a
demurrer and at its highest. A reading of the suicide note reveals that the
appellant was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the
deceased and advanced to Ritesh Malakar. It could not be said that the
appellant by performing his duty of realising outstanding loans at the behest
of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Equally so, with the transcripts, including the portions emphasised
hereinabove. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant
intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said
that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased
with no other option except to commit suicide. Viewed from the armchair of the
appellant, the exchanges with the deceased, albeit heated, are not with intent
to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This is the
conclusion we draw taking a realistic approach, keeping the context and the
situation in mind. Strangely, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of two
months and twenty days.
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
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.
21.
For the above reasons, we hold that the case against the appellant is
groundless for framing of a charge under Section 306. Hence, we discharge
the appellant from proceedings in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2023 pending on the
file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Khargone District, Mandleshwar and
quash and set aside the said proceedings. The appeal is allowed and the
impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the High Court in Criminal Revision
No. 1142 of 2023 is set aside.
------