1. This appeal is filed under Section 14-A of Schedule and the Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) ACt, 1989 against the judgment dated 06/05/2023 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Atrocity) Tikagamgarh in SC/ATR) No.174/2022 convicting the appellant under Section 306/107 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.

2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that considering the material produced by the prosecution and also the contents of FIR no case of Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. He contends that Court below has committed grave illegality in framing the charges against the appellant. There is no required ingredient to constitute the offence of Section 306 of IPC as has been prescribed under Section 107 of IPC. There is no abetment on the part of the appellant. He further submits that case is also not made out on the ground of delay in lodging FIR.

3. On other hand, counsel for State has supported the order passed by the Court below and submitted that material collected by the prosecution and produced before the Court is sufficient to frame the charges against the appellant. He submits that appeal is without any substance and deserves to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the submissions and perused the record and FIR.

5. FIR was lodged on 12/08/2022 wherein the complainant, Harish Chandra Kori, informed the police that his son, Nihal @ Lala Kori, died on 02/03/2022 from falling into a well due to excessive intoxication. Merg was registered, and an inquiry was conducted. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was determined to be drowning. The witnesses in their statement have informed the police that on 01/03/2022 in the night there was a programme of Orchestra, in which Sarpanch of the village namely Raja Bhaiya Yadav(appellant) slapped the deceased Nihal. This action was taken because Nihal, who was intoxicated, was causing disruptions in the programme by repeatedly approaching the stage and also disturbing the girls who were dancing on the stage. It is stated that Raja Bhaiya was also asked him to sit outside the tent where programme was being organized. In response, deceased expressed to Sarpanch Raja Bhaiya that he felt disgraced amongst the villagers and, therefore, he would not alive. It has also come in FIR that Raja Bhaiya Yadav instructed the deceased either to watch the Orchestra peacefully or leave for home. After completion of programme all have gone back but body of the deceased Nihal was found in the well. At the relevant point of time no offence was registered but on 12/08/2022 offence was registered against the appellant on the ground that deceased got insulted by the present appellant, due to which he committed suicide by jumping in the well.

6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that there is no direct evidence available that at any point of time present appellant has abetted and compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There was no mens rea available and established. There is no evidence available that the appellant has asked the deceased to go and commit suicide. There is no required ingredient to constitute the offence of Section 306 of IPC as has been prescribed under Section 107 of IPC.

7. For ready reference Section 306 of IPC and Section 107 of 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.

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. 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, wilfully 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.

8. The Supreme Court in case of Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2020 (10) SCC 200 [LQ/SC/2020/699 ;] has held as under:-

16 The necessary ingredients for the offence under Section 306 IPC were considered in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan [S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 [LQ/SC/2010/830] : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] [LQ/SC/2010/830] where explaining the concept of abetment, Dalveer Bhandari, J. wrote as under :

“25. 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”

17. While dealing with a case of abetment of suicide in Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 [LQ/SC/2009/2008] : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] [LQ/SC/2009/2008] , Dr M.K. Sharma, J. writing for the Division Bench explained the parameters of Section 306 IPC in the following terms :

“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.

13. 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.”

18. In Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, (2014) 12 SCC 595 [LQ/SC/2014/330] : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 127] , which again was a case of wife's unnatural death, speaking for the Division Bench, K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, J. rightly observed as under : (SCC p. 606, para 24)

“24. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High Court [Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, decided on 27-5-2008 (P&H)] that “no prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do so”. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.”

19. Proceeding with the above understanding of the law and applying the ratios to the facts in the present case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant's side, in taking due care of his deceased wife. The evidence also does not indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband. Nothing to this effect is testified by the parents or any of the other prosecution witnesses. The trial court and the High Court speculated on the unnatural death and without any evidence concluded only through conjectures, that the appellant is guilty of abetting the suicide of his wife.

20. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in declaring that the trial court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit suicide by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home. This is nothing more than an inference, without any material support. Therefore, the same cannot be the basis for sustaining conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC.

9. Further in (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.), 2002(5) SCC 371 Supreme Court has observed as under:-

14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26-7- 1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25-7-1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of “abetment” are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25-7-1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.

15. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The charge-sheet dated 2- 7-2001, framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, in Sessions Trial No. 469 of 1998 for an offence under Section 306 IPC and the order of the High Court under challenge are hereby quashed.

10. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law and considering the required ngredient of Section 107 of IPC viz a viz the material available in the present case as collected by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that there is no material for forming an offene against the appellant under the respective provision as has been framed by the court below and as such that order dated 06/05/2023 is set-aside. The appellant is discharged from all the charges levelled against him

11. The appeal is accordingly allowed.