The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.08.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1996, whereby the present appellants–original accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be convicted for the offences under section 323, 306 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC’). For the offence under section 323 read with section 114, IPC they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. In respect of conviction under section 306 read with section 114, IPC they came to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/- each, and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that the amount of fine of Rs.3,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by way of compensation. 2. The complaint (Exh.9) lodged by Radhabai, wife of the deceased Somabhai revealing the prosecution case mentioned that her husband was working as labourer in the field of appellant No.1-Sureshbhai, and was receiving lumpsum payment. On 22.11.1995, appellant–accused No.1 came to their house to complain that her husband was not coming to work. Thereafter, accused No.1 dragged Somabhai out of the house and gave ultimatum that he will have to resume work within two days. The complaint proceeded further to state that on the same day again at around 9.00 a.m., accused No.1 came back accompanied by his son Jayesh–accused No.2. They again asked the husband of the complainant to come to work. They also asked him to return the money borrowed from them. Then, they started pulling the complainant’s husband Somabhai, and when the complainant intervened, accused No.2 pushed her back, as a result of which, she fell down. Both accused No.1 and 2 took Somabhai to their house, and she also followed them. The complainant stated that she returned home after some time as her husband Somabhai went together with accused No.1 to the field taking the cart along with him. At around 1.30 p.m., one Kantibhai brought the body of Somabhai, and stated that Somabhai had committed suicide by taking pesticide. He was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Thus, in nutshell it was the case in the complaint that both the accused trespassed the house, dragged and insulted Somabhai, and gave two slaps. It was alleged that as a result of such acts and conduct on the part of the appellants-accused, her husband committed suicide by taking pesticide.
3. First Information Report was registered for the offences under sections 306, 452, 323 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as for the offence under section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as `the Atrocity Act’). The case was registered as Atrocity Case No. 38 of 1996. The charge was framed at Exh.4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined witnesses, and led documentary evidence. Both the accused came to be acquitted for the offence under the Atrocity Act, however, they came to be convicted for the other offences as stated above.
4. Learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel for the appellants submitted with reference to the evidence of Radhabai (PW-1, Exh.8), the evidence of Chimanbhai Babubhai (PW-11, Exh.3) and the contents of the complaint (Exh.9) that from the evidence on record, different causes of death were indicated. He next submitted that evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 was inconsistent in terms of time of occurrence as well as the manner of occurrence of the incident. It was submitted that the ingredients of offence under section 306 were not satisfied; that there was no instigation within the meaning of section 107 of the Code. It was submitted that prosecution did not establish that the suicide committed by the deceased was the result of instigation by the accused persons.
4.1 On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. L.R. Pujari submitted that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 on the contrary, clearly demonstrate that the deceased was severely beaten by the two accused persons who have trespassed into the house of the deceased during morning time. Since they beat the deceased in public, and dragged him and also gave slaps, the deceased on reaching the field took pesticides and committed suicide. It was submitted that the incident and the act of suicide had nexus, and the only inference which could be drawn was that it was on account of the cruel conduct of the accused persons that Somabhai committed suicide.
5. The gravamen of the offence under Sec. 306, IPC is abetting suicide. Sec. 107, IPC defines the abetment. Those provisions may be looked into beforehand to comprehend its necessary ingredients. In order to constitute an offence under Section 306, IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306, IPC, would stand only if there is an “abetment” for the commission of the crime.
5.1 The parameters of “abetment” have been stated in Section 107, IPC, which defines “abetment” of a thing as follows:
“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.
Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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.”
5.2 In Ganguly Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2010 (1) SCC 750] the Supreme Court observed that the word ‘suicide’ itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code. However, its meaning and import is well known. ‘Sui’ means ‘self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’. The suicide is an act of self killing. A person committing suicide must commit it by himself irrespective of means employed by him for killing himself. An important ingredients for the offence under sec 306, IPC is the mens rea, as is highlighted in Ganguly Mohan Raddy (supra).
“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.”
5.3 In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [2009 (16) SCC 605], the Supreme Court observed that a person can be said to have abetted in doing 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. Explanation to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of “abetment”. It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC The apex court outlined the circumstances requiring to prove the offence under sec.306, IPC, as under, “(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.”
5.4 The Supreme Court explained the word ‘instigate’ used in Sec. 107 of IPC in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2001 (9) SCC 618] by saying that the ‘instigation’ comprises in continued course of conduct or acts or omissions on part of the accused, whereby he had created such situation or circumstances that the deceased was left with no other way, but to commit suicide.
6. Keeping in view the above parameters, the evidence on record may be analysed. PW-1 Radhabai, who was the complainant, deposed at Exh.8 that her husband was serving with the accused persons since childhood and was doing labour work in their field. On the date of incident, i.e. 22.11.1995, he had gone for labour work at 6 a.m. He did not come back in the noon for lunch. At around 12 noon Chimanbhai Babubhai (PW-3) brought the body of her husband in the bullock cart. He was already dead at that time. She stated that in the morning the accused persons had come to their house and had beaten her husband as he had not gone to work for one day. He was beaten because Rs.200 was demanded from the accused persons. She stated that he was forcibly taken by the accused persons. Another aspect coming out from her evidence (Exh.8) was that 4-5 days prior to the date of incident, they had gone to village Jaferpura as the father-in-law of her deceased sister-in-law (nanand) had died. There was besna on the occasion of death. For going there, money was required to be spent.
6.1 It may be mentioned that the contents of the complaint (Exh.9) and the deposition of PW-1 (Exh.8) varied in some respect with regard to the details of the incident. As per the complaint (Exh.9) it was mentioned that accused No.1 had come to the house of of the deceased at 8 a.m. in the morning, whereas in the evidence (Exh.8) the time shown was 6 a.m. In Exh.9 what was mentioned was that accused No.1 had initially come at 8 a.m., he went back after browbeating her husband and again came back at around 9 a.m. accompanied by his son Jayesh, accused No.2. PW-1, however, did not say in her evidence that the accused persons had come second time. Moreover, the body of the deceased was brought by PW-3 as well as one Kantibhai, which was the case in the complaint. In the evidence (Exh.8), however, what was mentioned was that it was only PW- 3, who brought the body. Whether these inconsistencies amount to contradiction and whether the same have the effect of demolishing the evidence of the complainant or they have tarnishing effect on the prosecution story, is not examined in view of the other evidence discussed hereinafter which has emerged on the record.
6.2 The other evidence was of Rameshbhai, son of the deceased aged 15 years (PW-2 Exh.10) who stated on similar lines of the evidence of PW-1. He stated that he knew about his father having taken pesticide. He stated that his father had died. Chimanbhai Babubhai (PW-3) deposed at Exh.11. He was working in the field of one Harshad and on the day of incident had gone to the field of accused No.1. He deposed that at that time the deceased was present near the well in the field and was in drunken condition. Corroborating the evidence of PW-1 about death of PW-1’s sister-in-law and the deceased having gone to the village in Mehsana, PW-3 stated further in his evidence that for the purpose of going for besna, he had given Rs.400-500 to the deceased. PW-3 stated that the deceased wasted and lost the said money in gambling. It was further deposed by PW-3 that when he asked the deceased to have meals, he stated that he would go for meals at his own house. Thereafter, PW-3 Kantibhai, who was watering the field, came after sometime and informed that Somabhai had taken pesticides. PW-3 categorically stated that the deceased took pesticides because he was indebted. The other evidence is of Investigating Officer-Navinchandra Desai (PW-4 Exh.19), who conducted inquiry, prepared the inquest Panchnama (Exh.12) in presence of the Panchas and also carried out Panchnama of the place (Exh.13) and also recovery panchnama (Exhs. 14 & 15). Samples of sand, clothes, etc. were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, for examination. The postmortem report (Exh.16) indicated the cause of death. However, the doctor who prepared the postmortem report was not examined rendering the postmortem report (Exh.16) to be inadmissible piece of evidence.
7. On cumulative reading of the above discussed evidence, it emerges firstly that the deceased was not going to work in the field of the accused persons where he was working as labourer. The complainant had gone after the accused persons who took her husband-the deceased forcibly. The prosecution case that the accused persons had in the morning gone to the house of the deceased/complainant and where they reprimanded and beaten the deceased to take him to the field for labour work was not enough to make `instigation’ necessary in law for the purpose of constituting offence. The evidence on record also did not suggest so. Mere reprimand howsoever strong, cannot amount to abetment to commit suicide. Evidence clearly showed that after the accused persons came and scolded the deceased, deceased himself went for labour work with bullock cart. But on finding that her husband had finally gone to the field joining the bullock cart, she returned back free from worry. The deceased stayed in the field for few hours. His body was thereafter brought at 12 noon. There is also evidence of what happened in between. There was gap of time. The evidence of Chimanbhai Babubhai (PW-3) suggests that he had met the deceased and the deceased was telling about he having gone to Jaferpura on the occasion of death. It was also revealed that PW-3 had given to the deceased Rs.400-500 for going there, but the deceased had lost the said amount in gambling. PW-3 appears to have asked him for meals also, but the deceased denied. It was after sometime that one Kantibhai informed PW-3 about the deceased having taken pesticide. In this regard PW-3 in terms stated that deceased took pesticide since he was heavily indebted. PW-3 is an independent witness and his evidence remains trustworthy.
7.1 The incident of the morning and the act on the part of the deceased to take pesticides, had long gap in terms of both time and events which displaces the immediate nexus between the two. The act of instigation and the resultant commitment of suicide has to offer close nexus not only in terms of cause and effect, but also in proximity of time. The suicide has to be direct consequence of act of instigation. The other ingredient is the mens rea in the entire incident description in the evident of PW-1 and others did not show anything to suggest that the appellant had mens rea. Their purpose of coming to the house of the deceased was to reprimand him, as he was not coming to the field for labour work. What is required is that the nature of harassment meted-out which was a direct result leading the person to commit suicide. If the facts of the present case and the evidence on record as is analysed above, there is nothing to show that accused was persistently harassing the deceased who was employed under them. It is not possible to read mens rea in the conduct of the accused. Offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person to abet. It is not dependent upon the act done by the accused person who has abetted. It is only a conjuncture to presume that they had mens rea.
8. In Madan v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 8 SCC 628], the Supreme Court was dealing with the case where a person who was working as a driver with the accused committed suicide leaving a suicide note stating that the accused was solely responsible for his death. The deceased, a driver, had undergone a bi-pass surgery for his heart which is before the occurrence of the incident. His doctor had advised him against doing any stressful work. When the deceased failed to comply with the orders of the accused who was his superior officer and who rebuked him in harsh manner, the driver committed suicide. The Supreme Court found that incident was one time occurrence. For the purpose of bringing home the charge under section 306 read with 107 of IPC. The allegation has to be to the effect that the accused had either instigated the deceased in some way to commit suicide or had engaged some other person for a conspiracy to do so. The court came to the conclusion that observation by superior regarding work of his subordinate, if termed as abetment of suicide, it would become almost impossible for superior officer to discharge their duties. It was held in that case that accused had never intended that the deceased employed under him to commit suicide.
8.1 In Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. [ 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 ], the allegations made were that her mother-in-law and husband as well as sister-in- law were harassing her, that they beat her and abused her. It was alleged further that her husband wanted to marry second wife and had illicit relation with her sister-in-law. It was stated by wife that because of these reasons and being harassed she wanted to die by burning. With reference to such allegations, the court came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abettment were attracted on such statements of the deceased. The conviction under section 306 IPC was held unsustainable in law.
9. So far as offence under section 323 is concerned, no injury could be proved because the postmortem report in which the injuries were mentioned could not have been relied on against the doctor who prepared the postmortem report was not examined. There was no legal evidence, therefore, to sustain the charge for the offence under section 323 of IPC.
10. For all the aforesaid reasons and discussion, the judgment and order dated 28.08.1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Atrocity Case No. 38 of 1996 convicting the appellants for the offence under section 323 and 306 read with section 114 of IPC and sentencing them for the said offences, are hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Since the appellants are already on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
sndevu (N.V.ANJARIA, J.)