The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 17 January 2025 (Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), held that a suicide note alleging harassment by Mahendra Awase for repeatedly seeking repayment of loan from deceased Ranjeet Singh cannot be considered as instigating the deceased to commit suicide.
Upon perusal of call recordings, the Supreme Court observed use of repeated abusive language by Mahendra Awase while seeking loan repayment but held that the same could not establish that he instigated the commission of suicide by the deceased or that he created such circumstances that left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide. The relevant excerpt of the transcript of call recording is as follows:
“Deceased: Sir in the evening, in the evening, let me go at least.
Mahendra: Let’s go. (*********) abusive language. Now let me know whether we are to go in the evening? Yes, we are to go in the evening. Bhaiya since when you are to go. When I made a phone call only then you realized that we are to go in the evening.
Deceased: No, he has met me two times while on the way. Now, I may go to his home and only there I may convince him. What else can I do I also told him that I have nothing more. Dear I have only 30-35 thousand rupees. You may give him and get freed.
Mahendra: What are you narrating me. From where you may give money, (*******) abusive language.
Deceased: Yes, Sir.
Mahendra: Tell him I have no concern with it.
Deceased: You have got it and now you may return. That is all.
Mahendra: Listen, if you are not giving today then you may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with penalty in the office at 11:00 AM. If you cannot, I am not in your favour. If you don’t want to talk then I will tell my authority.
Deceased: No, No. Sir it is our duty.
Mahendra: You will pay money tomorrow because you had committed it.
Deceased: Yes, Sir.
Mahendra: Otherwise, I will come to the Pump. You can run up to when you can.
…
Mahendra: Let's go. (****) abusive language. Now let me know whether we are to go in the evening? Yes, we are to go in the evening. Bhaiya since when you are to go. When I made a phone call only then you realized that we are to go in the evening.
Mahendra: What are you narrating me? From where you may give money, (***) abusive language.
Mahendra: Tell him I have no concern with it.
Mahendra: Listen, if you are not giving today then you may deposit Rs. 11,800/- with penalty in the office at 11:00 A.M. If you cannot, I am not in your favour. If you don't want to talk then I will tell my authority.
Mahendra: You will pay money tomorrow because you had committed it.
Mahendra: Otherwise, I will come to the Pump. You can run up to when you can.
Mahendra: Thereafter, I will come home. The neighbourers will hear the story. I will put banners at your house. That’s it.
Mahendra: You have signed the file indicating that this person has obtained the loan and now is not traceable. You may come and meet me and see that some people have written. If I may get it written which will not be right. The modesty of your parents will also hurt.
Mahendra: Then, you may make payment of money. (****) abusive language. You may return my money. That’s all. You go and arrange.”
Before reaching the conclusion, the Supreme Court referred its previous judgement in the matter of Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and Another, [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438] wherein the Court held that the remark to the deceased that ‘go and die’ are “casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. …”. The court also relied upon its earlier judgments in the matter of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707; M. Mohan vs. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626; and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.
The Supreme Court also observed that Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the police. The Court while sensitising the investigation agencies remarked that while the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It further advised trial courts to exercise great caution and circumspection and advised to not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of section 306.
The Court finally held that the case against Mahendra Awase is groundless for framing of a charge under section 306 IPC and the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 25.07.2023 was set aside and Mahendra Awase was discharged.
No comments:
Post a Comment