ANURUDH PRASAD TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 'Puranas' may propagate with religious aura of sacrifice, universal morality and enormity of human greatness that Dadhichi sat in 'Samadhi' to extinguish the life spark at the behest of the gods so that the weapon made of his bones could be utilised to put an end to the life of Brutrausur, but in actual fact of life he who abets in the commission of suicide makes himself liable for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The keywords being 'abet' and for 'commission of offence' the question that falls for determination is which acts can be regarded as abetting so as to attract the culpability to constitute the offence. In the case at hand the factual scenario precisely calls for consideration whether individual escapism and concretisation of pessimistic proclivity or incapacity to suffer the brunt of a stranger or a fraction of society can make the accused -petitioner liable for the alleged offence so as to compel him to face the trial for the same.

(2.) THE facts on which the prosecution is founded are that in the summer of 1994 an election for Gram Panchayat of village Chandwad was held. The fight was between Sudhir Gour and Ashok Kumar Gour. Ashok Kumar Gour lost the election and, two days thereafter Rambai a supporter of Ashok Kumar lodged an FIR alleging that Golu alias Ajit had forcibly ravished her. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR a crime was registered at the concerned police station. As the prosecution story proceeds on 1.6.94 said Rambai sent a letter to the S.P. Hoshangabad stating that after she was raped efforts were being made by the accused Golu and other persons namely, Om Prakash, Shyamsundar and A.P. Tiwari to coerce her to withdraw the FIR. It is also alleged by the prosecution that on 9.7.94 these accused persons went to the house of complainant Rambai and procured an affidavit which reflected that there has been a compromise between Golu and her, Unable to bear the constant threat and illtreatment meted to her, she extinguished her lifespark on 10.7.94.

(3.) IMPUGNING the aforesaid order it is contended by Mr. Datt learned counsel for the petitioner that letter written by Rambai and the statements of the witnesses named Durga Prasad, Arun Kumar, Bhagwati Prasad, Raghubir Prasad and' also other witness Subhash do not any way indicate that the petitioner had abeted in the commission of suicide. The basic ingredients of section 306, IPC are not satisfied. It is also canvassed by him that the only allegation against the petitioner is that he prepared an affidavit which was sworn to by Rambai and such an act was accomplished under duress. He has referred to the statements to highlight that there was enmity between the complainant and Golu alias Raghunand Deewan and in noway the petitioner has been implicated by any of the witnesses. He has also referred to Section 107 of the IPC to highlight that by no stretch of imagination it can be construed that the allegations as alleged would constitute the offence in question. To buttress his submissions he has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Vedprakash V. State of M.P., 1994 JLL 758; Swamy Prahaladdas V. State of M.P. and another, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438; Nand Kishore Vishwannath Neware Vs. State of Maharashtra, II (1993) DMC 195 and Brij Lal and another V. State (Delhi Administration), 1984 Crimes (2) 987.