Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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