Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

"Act Not a Remote Cause for Abetment of Suicide": Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes FIR Under Section 306 IPC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) under Justice Pranay Verma has quashed an FIR and chargesheet against Ramchandra @ Ramdeepak Goyan, registered for alleged abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court opined, "In absence of establishing necessary ingredients for attracting Section 306 of the IPC, the petitioner cannot be compelled to face the trial unnecessarily."

According to the details of the case, the petitioner was accused of not paying for the crops of the deceased, Laxminarayan, who later committed suicide. The charges were brought under Sections 420, 306, and 34 of the IPC. However, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the element of instigation or abetment on part of the petitioner.

Justice Pranay Verma, while elucidating the element of 'instigation,' cited the Apex Court's judgment in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger V/s. State of M.P., stating, "Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die,' that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation.'"

Further relying on Gangula Mohan Reddi V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court emphasized, "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 Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Hukum Singh Yadav V/s. State of M.P. to elaborate that abusing and threatening alone could not be assumed to be instigation or abetment to suicide.

As a consequence of the analysis, the Court quashed the FIR and the final chargesheet dated 22.07.2022 against Ramchandra only in so far as Section 306 of the IPC is concerned. The proceedings under other sections will continue.

This judgment has been seen as a clarification on the critical elements required for constituting abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Legal experts believe that this decision will serve as a landmark in preventing unnecessary criminal trials when the requisite elements are not met.

Date of Decision: 06-10-2023 

RAMCHANDRA @ RAMDEEPAK GOYAN  vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News