Assaulting a Person and Not Paying Back the Loan Amount Does Not Amount to Abetment to Suicide: High Court of MP

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Indore) in Ramchandra & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh has quashed an FIR, Chargesheet, and entire consequential criminal proceedings registered against 13 accused for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 i.e. for Abetment of Suicide while observing that assaulting a person, not paying back the loan amount and not returning the borrowed items cannot be treated as abetment to suicide. Criminal Lawyer in Indore Harsh Kumar Patidar appeared for accused.

Prosecution Story (Criminal Lawyer in Indore)

The prosecution case was that the deceased had given a monetary sum by way of a loan to one of the accused. The accused also borrowed some agriculture equipment from the deceased. Whenever the deceased used to demand back the loan amount and his agriculture equipment, the accused used to make excuses and avoid payment of the loan amount. Once the deceased went to the accused to demand the loan amount and agriculture equipment, all the accused started beating him, torn down his clothes and beat the deceased with a stick and brought him to his house from the Chopal of the village. 8 days later to the incident, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on a tree. A suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased wherein he named 13 accused responsible for his death. An FIR and later on, a chargesheet were registered against the 13 accused for the offence of abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and framed the charges. The accused approached the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Bench at Indore) by way of ‘Quashing Petitition’ under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR, Chargesheet and entire consequential criminal proceedings.

 Criminal Lawyer in Indore Harsh Kumar Patidar appeared for accused.

Arguments(Criminal Lawyer in Indore)

1. There are substantial contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witness recorded under Section 174, Cr.P.C.

   
   

2. Petitioners/accused have never instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

   
   

3. The altercation, beating and assaulting the deceased do not amount to instigation or incitement for commission of suicide. This argument was backed by the Supreme Court’s judgement in Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand.

   
   

4. Accused’s act of not paying money due to the deceased does not amount to instigation or incitement for the commission of suicide. This argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s judgement in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra.

   
   

5. The incident of assaulting the deceased by the accused cannot be said to have taken place in close proximity to the date of suicide. As the act done to facilitate the commission of suicide should be closely proximate in time to the time of the incident. The acts done at a distant time with no close, nearness or proximity to the time of suicide will obviously have to be ruled out, as acts facilitating and accelerating the commission of suicide.

   
   

6. Because, in the same facts and circumstances, no prudent man of the same society would commit suicide and petitioners/accused cannot be roped in criminal litigation because of the hypersensitive nature of the deceased.

High Court’s Judgement (Criminal Lawyer in Indore)

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the deceased had mentioned the names of the petitioners/accused in the said note, who manhandled and threatened him, but the note nowhere states that he was asked, provoked, goaded, and instigated to commit suicide by the accused. The alleged altercations and quarrels occurred a considerable time ago, making it difficult to infer any live link to deceased’s death. The alleged conduct does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or "instigation". If the deceased was aggrieved by the conduct of accused, he could have taken legal action against them and lodged a complaint to police and other authorities. In the case of suicide, the mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such an action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. The Hon’ble High Court while observing as above held that the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC was not prima facie made out against the petitioners/accused. And consequently, while allowing the quashing petition, the FIR, Chargesheet and entire consequential criminal proceedings pending before the trial court have been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court.

 Criminal Lawyer in Indore Harsh Kumar Patidar appeared for accused.

The accused/petitioners were represented by Advocate Harsh Kumar Patidar (Founder of Pitambara Law Chambers).