1 apl817.18.

odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.817 OF 2018

1.Sunil Muneshwar Yadav,
   Aged about 38 years, Occ.
   Business.
2.Sau.Rashmi Sunil Yadav,
   Aged about 35 years, 
   Occ.Business.

   Both r/o. Swawlambi Nagar,
   Kathora Naka, Amravati,
   Distt. Amravati. ….......      APPLICANTS

// VERSUS //

1.State of Maharashtra,
   Through P.S.O., P.S., Gadge
   Nagar, Tah. and District
   Amravati.

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 2 apl817.18.odt

2.Sau.Shilpa Pradip Yadav,
   Aged about 28 years,
   r/o. C/o. Nandlal (Munna)
   Yadav, Near Floor Mill,
   Ward No.2, Nandura, Tq.
   Nandura, District. Buldhana.           ….......       RESPONDENTS

____________________________________________________________
        Mr.P.V.Navlani, Advocate for the Applicants.
               Ms T.H.Udeshi, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
                   Mr.A.S.Dhore, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

*******
Date of reserving the Judgment           :  4.7.2019.
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment :  17.7.2019.
*******

      CORAM     :  P.N.DESHMUKH 
       AND
                                                        PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

ORAL JUDGMENT  (Per P.N.Deshmukh, J)   :

1. Rule returnable forthwith.  Heard by consent of learned

Counsel for the respective parties.

2. This application is for quashing of F.I.R. No.561 of 2018

registered by non­applicant no.1 on the complaint of non­applicant

no.2 for the offence under Section 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 3 apl817.18.odt

Code.   It is the case of applicants that deceased Muneshwar Yadav

and Shobha Muneshwar Yadav were parents of applicant no.1, while

applicant no.2 is wife of applicant no.1.   Non­applicant no.2 Shilpa

Pradip   Yadav   is   married   sister   of   applicant   no.1.     At   the   time   of

incident, deceased parents of applicant no.1 and Complainant were

residing with the applicants who had married in the year 2009 and

the applicants used to take due care of deceased since both of them

were   aged   and   suffering   from   various   diseases.     Apart   from

Complainant Shilpa, deceased had elder daughter who was married

and who was staying at Yavatmal.   Relations between Complainant

and deceased were not cordial since she had married with one Pradip

Yadav of Nandura against their wish and as such, after her marriage,

deceased   parents   had   not   kept   relations   with   Complainant.

According   to   the   applicants,   on   this   count,   relations   between

Complainant   and   deceased   were   strained   as   she   used   to   invite

quarrels with them demanding partition in the immovable property.

Since the deceased were suffering from various ailments and were

aged   people,   a   Will   deed   came   to   be   executed   by   deceased

Muneshwar   on   8.3.2018,   by   which   he   bequeathed   immovable

property   in   favour   of   applicant   no.1;   while   deceased   Shobha

Muneshwar   Yadav,   by   executing   Will,   bequeathed   one   acre   of

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 4 apl817.18.odt

agricultural land out of total land admeasuring 1 H 67 R in favour of

Complainant and remaining land was distributed amongst applicant

no.1 and his elder sister Sunita.  It is specific case of the applicants

that   as   Complainant   was   given   a   small   share   in   the   immovable

property, she was unhappy and used to quarrel with her parents .

3. It  is  further  case  of  applicants  that  the  deceased were

aged   about   72   years   and   62   years   respectively.     Deceased

Muneshwar was suffering from diseases like Enophthalmos, Chronic

sugar, High B.P. and other  diseases and was  often  required to be

admitted in  hospital for medical treatment; while deceased Shobha

was suffering from Spondylitis as well as back problem due to which

she was unable to walk.  Thus, according to the applicants, both the

deceased were suffering from physical ailments and on 12.6.2018,

they   died   of   consuming   poison.     While   residing   with   applicants,

however,   the   deceased   were   occupying   separate   room   and   hence,

applicant no.1 got to know about the incident on the following day

when he informed police upon which Marg No.43 of 2018 came to

be registered and was investigated.  

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 5 apl817.18.odt

4. Thus,   it   is   specific   case   of   applicants   that   since

Complainant was unhappy as she was bequeathed with share less in

quantity as compared to applicant no.1 and her elder sister Sunita,

though   she   attended  funeral   on   12.6.2018,   she   did  not   choose  to

lodge report on the same day; however, lodged false report two days

thereafter  implicating  applicants alleging that  they have  instigated

deceased to commit suicide.   It is submitted that, in fact, from the

above facts it appears that non­applicant no.2 has lodged false report

as her relations with her parents were strained due to her performing

love  marriage  with   Pradip   Yadav   against  wish  of  her  parents   and

secondly,   for   not   getting   immovable   property   equal   to   that   of

applicant no.1 and her elder sister Sunita. It is, therefore, contended

that,   for   this   reason,   report   is   lodged,   upon   which   offence   as

aforesaid is registered, which is prayed to be quashed.  

5. Similar is the case of prosecution on facts as mentioned

in para no.4 of it's reply, which is reproduced as below  :

“4.  The case of the prosecution is that, the applicant no.1
is an elder son of the deceased parents.  The applicant no.1

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 6 apl817.18.odt

being elder brother having two small sisters namely Sunita
Pravin   Yadav   aged   about   34   years   and   Shilpa   Pradip
Yadav aged about 28 years.   The deceased parents were
residing   with   the   applicants.     The   applicant   no.1   has
married with applicant no.2 in the year 2009 and they
have two daughters.   The applicants were taking care of
their parents.   The parents being old were suffering from
various   diseases.     The   elder   daughter   of   the   deceased
namely Sau. Sunita Pravin Yadav had married to Pravin
Yadav in the year 2009.  One Pradip Yadav of Nandura is
in   relation   with   Pravin   Yadav.   Pradip   Yadav   and  small
sister   of   applicant   no.1   Shilpa   had   performed   love
marriage   against   the   wishes   of   parents   and   because   of
which parents were annoyed. 

Learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor,   however,

submitted that no case is made out for quashing of F.I.R.

6. In view of above rival submissions, we, at the outset, find

that applicants' case of deceased having sustained physical ailments

has   been   amply   established   from   the   medical   papers   placed   on

record wherefrom it is found that, since 2015 till March, 2018 when

they committed suicide, time and again they were required to obtain

medical treatment.   As such, there is ample evidence  to hold that

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 7 apl817.18.odt

both the deceased were not keeping good health.   It is material to

note   that   admittedly   relations   between   the   Complainant   and

deceased   were   not   cordial   as   she   had   married   against   their   wish.

Case  of  applicants  of  both  the  deceased executing  their  Wills  and

bequeathing amount of share to applicant no.1, his sister Sunita and

Complainant Shilpa has been further substantiated from the copies of

Wills on record.  In that view of the matter, applicants' case of Shilpa

having got less share as compared to applicant no.1 and her elder

sister   Sunita   is   also   substantiated.   From   the   above   aspect,   thus

strained   relations   between   the   Complainant   and   applicant   no.1   is

established and therefore, it is material to note that, after deceased

committed   suicide   by   consuming   poison   on   12.3.2018,   though

Complainant was present for funeral, She did not choose to lodge

report on the same day, but had lodged the same belatedly two days

thereafter.   

7. Apart from above, perusal of case diary and F.I.R. would

reveal that, even prior to lodging of such report, relations between

non­applicant   no.2   and   applicant   no.1   were   strained   and   for   this

reason,   non­applicant   no.2,   after   death   of   her   parents,   involved

applicants   in   the   present   crime   alleging   that,   due   to   ill­treatment

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 8 apl817.18.odt

given by applicants to her parents, they have abetted commission of

suicide by them.  From the report, it is also noted that non­applicant

no.2   since   got   married   against   wish   of   her   parents,   was   not   on

visiting   terms   with   them.     However,   when   the   deceased   were

residing   in   the   house   of   applicants,   Complainant's   aunt   namely

Sangita Yadav was on visiting terms with Complainant's parents and

it is alleged that, during that time, she used to call Sangita on her

mobile phone and used to talk to her mother who used to cry.  It is to

be noted that there is no mention of reason for Complainant's mother

crying on phone when she used to talk to Complainant as alleged in

the report.  Moreover, we do not find statement of Sangita Yadav in

the   case   diary   as   produced   by   respondent.     In   that   view   of   the

matter, above aspect in the report need no further consideration.

8. From the case diary, though we find that statement of

Complainant's   husband   Pradip   Yadav   is   also   recorded   along   with

additional   statement   of   Complainant,   except   for   these   statements,

there are no other statements of any independent witnesses. As such,

there is nothing to substantiate the case of non­applicant no.2.

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 9 apl817.18.odt

9. In the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra .vs. State (Govt.

of NCT of Delhi),  (2009) 16 SCC 605,  Hon'ble Apex Court had an

occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment.  The Court dealt with

the   dictionary   meaning   of   the   words   “instigation”   and   “goading”.

The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or

encourage   the   doing   of   an   act   by   the   latter.   Each   person's

suicidability pattern is different from the other.  Each person has his

own idea of selfesteem and selfrespect.  Therefore, it is impossible to

lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases.   Each

case   has   to   be   decided   on   the   basis   of   its   own   facts   and

circumstances.

10.  By now,  in  a  catena of  judgments,  the  Apex  Court

has considered the scope and meaning of “abetment” under Sections

107 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code to find out whether the charge

and conviction for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code can be sustained merely on the allegations of harassment   of

the     deceased     and     whether   the     ingredients     of   abetment     are

attracted  on  the  basis  of  the  statement  of  the deceased. 

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 10 apl817.18.odt

11. In   order   to   properly   comprehend   the   scope   and

ambit   of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is important to

carefully   examine   the   basic   ingredients   of   Section   306.   The   said

Section, is reproduced, thus:

“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.” 

“Abetment”   has   been   defined   under   Section   107   of

the  Indian   Penal   Code.   The   said   Section,   is   reproduced,
thus : 

“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. 

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 11 apl817.18.odt

Explanation     1  ­   A     person     who     by     willful

misrepresentation,   or   by   willful   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. 

Illustration :

A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a  Court
of Justice   to   apprehend   Z. B, knowing that fact and also
that C is not Z, willfully  represents  to  A  that  C  is  Z, and
thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C.  Here  B abets
by  instigation  the apprehension of C.

Explanation 2  ­ Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate
the commission  of   that   act,  and   thereby   facilitate    the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

12. Thus,   the   offence   of   abetment   is   a   separate   and   distinct

offence provided in the Act as an offence.  A person, abets the doing of

a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages

with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that

thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 12 apl817.18.odt

that thing.  These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime.

The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring

about   by   persuasion   to   do   any   thing.     The   abetment   may   be   by

instigation,   conspiracy   or   intentional   aid,   as   provided   in   the   three

clauses of Section 107. As such, in case of abetment of suicide there

must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission

of suicide.

13. After considering the above facts and legal propositions,

when the F.I.R. as well as statements are perused, they do not spell

out any of the ingredients attracting Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code   as   from   the   F.I.R.   it   cannot   be   said   that   applicants,   in   any

manner, abetted or instigated deceased to commit suicide.   On the

contrary, from the complaint as well as statements of Complainant

and her husband, it is revealed that relations between the deceased

and   the   Complainant   were   not   cordial   since   Complainant   had

married against their wish.  In fact, from the documents filed along

with   the   application,   it   is   materially   substantiated   that   both   the

applicants were providing due medical treatment and taking care of

their   aged   parents   and   in­laws   respectively.     In   that   view   of   the

matter, we can safely arrive at the conclusion that applicants are not

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 13 apl817.18.odt

even   remotely   connected   with   the   offence   as   no   ingredients   of

“abetment”   as  required   are   attracted   against   them   for   the   offence

registered since it is necessary for prosecution to atleast prima facie

establish   that   applicants   had   intentionally   aided   or   abetted   the

deceased to commit suicide.   In the  absence of availability  of any

such material, applicants cannot be prosecuted for Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code.  In that view of the matter, Criminal Application

is liable to be allowed.  The application is accordingly allowed.

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) of the

application. No order as to costs.  

JUDGE              JUDGE
 

[jaiswal]

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::

 14 apl817.18.odt

::: Uploaded on - 17/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/07/2019 23:25:53 :::