Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 22.05.2024
Pronounced on: 01.07.2024
+ CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 & CRL.M.A. 24925/2022
MANOJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pramod Kumar Dubey, Sr.
Adv. with Mr.Satya Prakash,
Ms.Pinky Dubey, Mr.Satyam
Sharma, Ms.Aditi, Mr.Prince
Kumar, Ms.Amrita Vatsa,
Ms.Ritvika Poswal, Mr.Ayush
Sachan, Mr.Chatainya Singh,
Mr.Shivam and Mr.Vaibhav
Kapur, Advs.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Aman Usman, APP with SI
Deepak Kumar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
J U D G M E N T
1. This petition has been filed under Section 397 read with Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, „Cr.P.C.‟)
challenging the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-02, North, Rohini Courts, New Delhi in SC
No. 391/2021 titled State v. Manoj Kumar, arising out of FIR
No.355/2020 registered with Police Station: Jahangir Puri, Delhi for
offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short,
„IPC‟), whereby the learned Trial Court has framed charge under
Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner herein.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 1 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
Case of the prosecution
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.07.2020, a PCR call
was received wherein it was reported that a boy had committed suicide
by hanging himself. The said information was lodged vide DD
No.74A.
3. It is further stated that the mother of the deceased, namely
Smt.Beena, had gone out for some work with her younger son and
upon returning to her house, found the main gate open. She further
saw that her elder son had committed suicide by hanging himself from
the hook of the fan by using a chunni . She raised an alarm and, with
the help of her neighbours, the deceased was brought down.
Thereafter, he was taken to the BJRM Hospital, however, was
declared dead.
4. It is stated that from the site of the incident, a suicide note,
ledger, and chunni had been recovered. It is stated that in the suicide
note, the deceased had alleged that the reason for his suicide is
attributable to the petitioner herein. He stated that the deceased had
given a loan of Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner herein prior to the Covid-
19 Pandemic Nationwide Lockdown and, during the lockdown, the
deceased had suffered losses in his business. In the suicide note, he
further stated that he had repeatedly asked the petitioner for the return
of the money as he was in dire need. On 20.07.2020, the petitioner
called the deceased to his Car on the pretext of returning the money,
but thereafter threatened him by saying that if the deceased continued
such demands, the petitioner would make his life difficult.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 2 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
5. On 23.07.2020, the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted
vide PM No. 601/2020, which opined that the cause of death was
asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. Thereafter, FIR No. 355/2020
was registered with Police Station Jahangir Puri for offence under
Section 306 of the IPC.
6. It is further alleged that during the course of the investigation,
the Bank Account details of deceased from the Union Bank of India
were obtained for the handwriting of the deceased by the Forensic
Science Laboratory. The said FSL Report opined that the handwriting
of the deceased matched with the admitted signatures of the deceased.
7. The learned Trial Court has been pleased to frame charge
against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Submissions by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by placing
reliance on the CFSL Result dated 09.03.2022, submits that the
alleged Suicide Note has not been written by the deceased. He submits
that the CFSL Result has not expressly opined the same to be written
by the deceased. He submits that apart from the questioned signature,
that is, Q2, that is the English signature of the deceased, matching
with the specimen signature of the deceased, there is no evidence
which can show that the Suicide Note was written by the deceased.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to attract the
offence of Section 306 of the IPC, there has to be an active
effort/suggestion on behalf of the accused for the victim to commit
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 3 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
suicide. He submits that there must be an intent to incite commission
of suicide. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the
judgement of the Delhi High Court in Dinesh Kumar v. State, 2019
SCC OnLine Del 6452.
10. He further submits that the alleged Suicide Note relied upon by
the prosecution merely indicates that there was a loan transaction
between the parties, and that the petitioner was refusing to repay the
same. He submits that the Suicide Note does not show that the
petitioner, by any act or omission, had intended for the deceased or
incited him to commit suicide. He submits that in absence thereof, the
charge under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out against the
petitioner. He places reliance on the judgement of the Delhi High
Court in Ashish Chaudhary v. State, 2009:DHC:169; of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab,
2009 SCC OnLine P&H 1304; and of the Supreme Court in M.
Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315, in support of his submission.
11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by placing
reliance on the judgements on the Supreme Court in Swamy
Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 1995 Supp (3) SCC
438 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2005) 5 SCC 371, submits that the altercation/arguments alleged to
have taken place in the car of the petitioner, also cannot be the basis
for such charge. He submits that the words used in the heat of the
moment would not amount to abetment to commit suicide.
12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that to
establish a prima facie offence under Section 306 of the IPC, there has
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 4 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
to be positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of
the accused person, which propelled the victim to commit suicide. He
submits that as per the prosecution and the alleged Suicide Note, the
argument between the petitioner and the deceased took place on
20.07.2020, whereas the incident occurred on 22.07.2020, that is, after
two days. The altercation, therefore, is not the proximate cause of
suicide.
13. He further submits that the Suicide Note itself suggests that the
deceased was in large amounts of debt and the alleged denial of the
petitioner to repay the sum of Rs.60,000/- alone cannot be the reason
for his suicide. He submits that therefore, charge under Section 306 of
the IPC is not made out. In support of his submission, he places
reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Geo Varghese v.
State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2021) 19 SCC 144.
14. He submits that neither there is evidence nor has any witness(s)
been examined to show the alleged loan or the manner in which the
same was given by the deceased to the petitioner.
15. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by placing
reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v.
Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr., (1979) 3 SCC 4, submits that the
petitioner is entitled to be discharged as there does not exist a prima
facie case or a case of grave suspicion against the petitioner.
Submissions by the learned APP for the State
16. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State submits that at
the time of framing of charge or in a revision against an order of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 5 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
charge/discharge, the adjudicating Court has to make a prima facie
opinion that a case is made out against the accused, rather than to sift
through the evidence which would result in conducting a mini trial at
that stage. He places reliance on the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by
the Supreme Court in SLP (CRL) 2924/2023, titled Manik B v.
Kadapala Sreyes Reddy .
17. He submits that the petitioner has been explicitly named in the
Suicide Note left by the deceased; and the altercation between the
petitioner and the deceased dated 20.07.2020 also shows that the
deceased, who was already facing the repercussions of the Covid-19
Pandemic, was left all the more hopeless by the petitioner‟s action of
not repaying the loan amount of Rs.60,000/-. He submits that the
resultant behaviour of a threat has to be seen in the context of the
peculiar facts of each case. He submits that the non-repayment of
Rs.60,000/- given by the deceased to the petitioner as loan, and
petitioner‟s denial to refund the same, is what propelled the deceased
to take such a drastic measure, as he was left with no option especially
coming from an economically weak background. He places reliance
on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Mahendra K.C. v. State of
Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129 and in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v.
State, (2009) 16 SCC 605, to submit that the Impugned Order,
therefore, deserves no interference.
Analysis & Findings:
18. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties.
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 6 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
19. A reading of the Charge-Sheet would show that the only
material to implicate the petitioner for an offence under Section 306 of
the IPC, is the alleged Suicide Note left the deceased. As it is a vital
and the only piece of evidence alleged against the petitioner, the same
is reproduced hereinbelow:
20. A reading of the above Suicide Note would show that apart
from the deceased blaming the petitioner for his decision to commit
suicide, there is not even a whisper of the petitioner ever instigated
him or even hinted at him to commit suicide. Mere refusal to repay the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 7 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
loan, cannot make the petitioner guilty of „ abetment of suicide’ under
Section 306 of the IPC .
21. 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.”
22. “Abetment” is defined in Section 107 of the IPC, 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.
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 authorised 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 facilitates the
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 8 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act.”
23. In Mahendra K.C. (supra), the Supreme Court considering the
provisions of Section 306 of the IPC read with Section 107 of the IPC,
has held that the essence of abetment lies in instigating a person to do
a thing or the intentional doing of that thing by an act or illegal
omission. It placed reliance on the earlier judgment in Ramesh Kumar
v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was held that
„instigation‟ is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to
an act. It was held that though to satisfy the requirement of instigation,
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. A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.
24. The Supreme Court also relied upon Chitresh Kumar Chopra
(supra), wherein it was held as under:-
“ 19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh [2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , where
the accused by his acts or by a continued
course of conduct creates such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide, an “instigation”
may be inferred. In other words, in order to
prove that the accused abetted commission of
suicide by a person, it has to be established
that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying
the deceased by words, deeds or wilful
omission or conduct which may even be a
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 9 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
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.”
25. In M. Arjunan (supra), the Supreme Court re-emphasised that:
“ 7. The essential ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment;
(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit
suicide. The act of the accused, however,
insulting the deceased by using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the
abetment of suicide. There should be evidence
capable of suggesting that the accused
intended by such act to instigate the deceased
to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of
instigation/abetment to commit suicide are
satisfied the accused cannot be convicted
under Section 306 IPC.”
26. In Geo Varghese (supra), the Supreme Court held that for
attracting Section 306 of the IPC, there must be an allegation of either
direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of offence of
suicide and mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another
person would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of
such actions on the part of the accused which compelled the
commission of suicide. It was held as under:-
“ 22. What is required to constitute an alleged
abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC is
there must be an allegation of either direct or
indirect act of incitement to the commission of
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 10 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
offence of suicide and mere allegations of
harassment of the deceased by another person
would not be sufficient in itself, unless, there
are allegations of such actions on the part of
the accused which compelled the commission
of suicide. Further, if the person committing
suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations
attributed to the accused are otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
situated person to take the extreme step of
committing suicide, it would be unsafe to hold
the accused guilty of abetment of suicide.
Thus, what is required is an examination of
every case on its own facts and circumstances
and keeping in consideration the surrounding
circumstances as well, which may have
bearing on the alleged action of the accused
and the psyche of the deceased.”
27. In the background of the above principles of law, let us now
examine the facts of the present case and the accusation against the
petitioner.
28. As has been stated hereinabove, the case against the petitioner
is based on the alleged Suicide Note left behind by the deceased. The
Suicide Note, at best, indicates that the deceased had lent a sum of
Rs.60,000/- to the petitioner, and when he asked for the return of the
same, the petitioner refused to return the same, and instead, called him
in his car and asked him to forget about the loan and if he keeps
asking for the same, the petitioner would make it difficult for him to
live in and work at G-Block. The deceased further stated that if the
petitioner had returned the money, he could have bought material to
supply it further, however, as the petitioner has refused to return the
money, he cannot think of anything else but dying as he was
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
extremely disturbed due to the lack of money and he had not informed
his family about it.
29. Further, there is no allegation in the Suicide Note or otherwise
that the petitioner ever instigated the deceased to commit suicide,
leave alone had any intention to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to
commit suicide. As has been held in the above referred judgments,
mere allegations of harassment of the deceased or using abusive
language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide.
30. I may herein also refer to the FSL Report, which has reported
that it is not possible to express any opinion on the handwritten part or
the signature in Hindi on the alleged Suicide Note. Therefore, there is
also a doubt on the author of the alleged Suicide Note.
31. Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
“ 227. Discharge. —If, upon consideration of
the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith, and after hearing the
submissions of the accused and the
prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers
that there is not sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons
for so doing.”
32. In Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), the Supreme Cout observed
that at the stage of framing charge, the Court cannot be a mere post
office or mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case and the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court. Of course, the Court cannot
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh
the evidence as if it was conducting a trial, the Court has an undoubted
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 12 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding
out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out. The Supreme Court culled out the following principles that
are applicable at the stage of considering the framing of
charges/discharge of the accused:-
“ 10. Thus, on a consideration of the
authorities mentioned above, the following
principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under Section
227 of the Code has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima
facie case against the accused has been made
out.
(2) Where the materials placed before the
Court disclose grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly
explained the Court will be fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the
trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case
would naturally depend upon the facts of each
case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of
universal application. By and large however if
two views are equally possible and the Judge
is satisfied that the evidence produced before
him while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be
fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under
Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under
the present Code is a senior and experienced
court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a
mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case,
the total effect of the evidence and the
documents produced before the Court, any
basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This however does not mean that the Judge
should make a roving enquiry into the pros
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 13 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00
and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence
as if he was conducting a trial.”
33. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Kanchan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2022) 9 SCC 577.
34. This Court is also cognizant of the limited power it exercises
under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.
35. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, as
have been discussed hereinabove, in my opinion, however, the
Impugned Order cannot be sustained. There is insufficient material to
frame charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner.
Howsoever reprehensible, immoral and even unlawful, may have been
the action attributed to the petitioner, the same cannot suffice to frame
charge under Section 306 of the IPC against him.
36. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 23.09.2022 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, North, Rohini Courts, New
Delhi in SC No. 391/2021 titled State v. Manoj Kumar , is hereby set
aside. The petitioner is discharged in the above criminal case arising
out of FIR No. 355/2020 registered with Police Station: Jahangir Puri
for offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
37. The petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
38. The pending application also stands disposed of.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
JULY 01, 2024/ RP
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
CRL.REV.P. 814/2022 Page 14 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:SUNIL
Signing Date:02.07.2024
11:25:00