PRAVEEN PRADHANversusSTATE OF UTTRANCHAL & ANR.

                    [2012] 8 S.C.R. 1129


                   PRAVEEN PRADHAN                                 A
                              v.
             STATE OF UTTRANCHAL & ANR.
            (Criminal Appeal No. 1589 of 2012)

                     OCTOBER 4, 2012
                                                                   B
     [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
               IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Charge u/
s. 306 /PC - Alleging constant humiliation and insult to the       C
deceased, driving him to commit suicide - Petition for
quashing the criminal proceedings - Dismissed by High Court
- On appeal, held: The allegations in FIR supported by the
suicide note and police statement of family members of the
deceased - In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,     D
criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.

    ss. 482 and 228 - Application for quashing of
proceedings - Held: While dealing with such application, court
cannot form a firm opinion, but a tentative view evoking           E
presumption u/s. 228 Cr.P. C.

     Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306 - Abetment of suicide -
Offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the
intention of the abettor and not on his act - Instigation has to
be gathered from the circumstances of the case - In absence        F
of direct evidence as regards instigation, it is to be inferred
from the circumstances.

    Words and Phrases - 'Instigation' - Meaning of, in the
context of s. 306 /PC.                                             G

     FIR was lodged against the appellant-accused
alleging that he consistently humiliated and ill-treated the
deceased which resulted in suicide committed by the
                             1129                                  H
     1130   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A deceased. During investigation, suicide note was found
  which also made same allegations against the accused.
  The appellant-accused was charged u/s. 306 IPC. He filed
  an application u/s. 482 for quashing of the charge-sheet,
  but the same was dismissed by High Court. Hence the
B present appeal.

        Dismissing the appeal, the Court

        HELD: 1. The offence of abetment by instigation
   depends upon the intention of the person who abets and
C not upon the act which is done by the person who has
   abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy
   or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC.
   However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission
  without any intention; cannot be termed as instigation.
D Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of
  a particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid
  down to find out as to whether in a particular case there
  has been instigation which forces the person to commit
  suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct
E evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct
  nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference
  has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be
  determined whether circumstances had been such which
  in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally
F frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing
  with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a
  court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view
  that would evoke the presumption referred to under
  Section 228 Cr.P.C. [Paras 14 and 15] [1140-C-D, E-G]
G       Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of
    Delhi) AIR 2010 SC 1446: 2009 (13) SCR 230; Ramesh
    Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC 3837: 2001 (4)
    Suppl. SCR 247; State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991
    SC 1532: 1991 (2) SCR 790; Surender v. State of Haryana
H
 PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL & 1131
                   ANR.
(2006) 12 SCC 375: 2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 296; Kishori Lal        A
v. State of M.P. AIR 2007 SC 2457: 2007 (7) SCR 1051;
Santi Rama Krishna v. Santi Shanti Sree AIR 2009 SC 923:
2008 (16) SCR 743 - relied on.

      2.1. In the FIR, the complainant, the brother of the
                                                               8
 deceased, made several allegations against the
 appellant, all of which, have also been mirrored in the
 suicide note left behind by the deceased, and it is also
 evident from the FIR that the deceased had intimated his
 family members regarding the ill-treatment and
 harassment constantly meted out to him, by the                C
 appellant. A plain and simple reading of this suicide note
 makes it crystal clear that the appellant had not just
 humiliated and insulted the deceased on one occasion.
 In fact, it is evident that the appellant perpetually
 humiliated, exploited and de-moralised the deceased,          D
 which hurt his self-respect tremendously. The words
 used are, to the effect that the appellant always hurt the
 self-respect of the deceased and he was always scolding
 him. The appellant always made attempts to force him to
 resign. The statements under Section 161 Cr.PC.,              E
 particularly, one made by the widow of the deceased and
 also those of various other family members, corroborate
 the version of events, as given in his suicide note. [Paras
 7 and 8) [1135-G-H; 1136-A, G-H, 1137-A]
                                                               F
      2.2. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not
  been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of
  persistent harassment. The deceased was a qualified
  graduate engineer and still suffered persistent
  harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to     G
  endure continuous illegal demands made by the
  appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he would be
  mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged
I
  period of time. He had also been forced to work
  continuously for long durations in the factory, vis-a-vis
                                                               H
    1132    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A other employees which often even extended to 16-17
  hours at a stretch. Considering the facts and
  circumstances of the present case, it is not a case which
  requires any interference by this court as regards the
  impugned judgment and order of the High Court. [Para
B 16] [1140-H; 1141-A-E]

      Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and Anr. (1995)
  Supp (3) SCC 438; Sanju'@ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State
  of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998: 2002 (3) SCR 668; Madan
  Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and Anr (2010) 8 SCC 628:
C 2010 (10) SCR 351 - distinguished.
                         Case Law Reference:
        (1995) Supp (3) SCC 438 Distinguished            Para 9

D       2002 (3) SCR 668            Distinguished        Para 10
        2010 (10) SCR 351           Distinguished        Para 11
        2009 (13) SCR 230           Relied on            Para 12
        2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 247 Relied on                Para 13
E
        1991 (2) SCR 790            Relied on            Para 14
        2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 296 Relied on                Para 14
        2007 (7) SCR 1051           Relied on            Para 14
F
        2008 (16) SCR 743           Relied on            Para 14
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 1589 of 2012.

G       From the Judgment & Order dated 5.01.2012 of the High
    Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application
    No. 420 of 2006.

       U.U. Lalit, K.V. Vishwanathan, Raunak Dhillon, lshan Gaur,
    Mehul M. Gupta (For Karanjawala & Co.) for the Appellant.
H
PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL &1133
                  ANR.

     Rahul Verma, Saurabh Trivedi for the Respondents.                 A

     The Jud~ment of the Court was delivered by

     DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

      2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned           B
judgment and order dated 5.1.2012 passed by the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Misc. Application No. 420
of 2006, by way of which the High Court dismissed the
 application under Section 48.2 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), filed by the appellant   c
 for the purpose of .quashing the criminal proceedings, i.e.
 chargesheet Nci. 2"08/2005 and order of cognizance dated
 28.4.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar,
 filed upon an investigation conducted on the basis of FIR
 No.285 of 2005 (Crime No.258/2005) pertaining to P.S.:                o
 Ranipur, Haridwar.

     3. The facts and c)rcumstances giving rise to this appeal
are as follows :           ·

     A. That, a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to      E
as 'FIR') was lodged by one Ambreesh Singh, who is the
brother of Anurag Singh, the deceased, alleging that the
appellant had long been attempting to compel the deceased
to indulge in several wrongful practices at the work place. The
deceased was not comfortable with complying with such orders           F
and as a consequence, the appellant started making illegal
demands and as the sam.=> were not fulfilled, he began to harass
and insult the deceased at the regular intervals. The appellant.
in fact, on one occasion, disgraced the deceased in front of
the staff of the entire factory, and told him that "had there been     G
any other person in his place, he would have died by hanging
himself'.

      B. Anurag Singh talked to several of his family members
 on 6.10.2005 over the phone. They stated that he came across
 as highly perturbed and, hence, they tried to pacify him.             H
    1134     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A However, owing to the constant humiliation and ill-treatment
  meted out to him by the appellant, Anurag Singh committed
  suicide on 7.10.2005.

        C. On the basis of the said FIR, criminal proceedings were
8 initiated and in the course of the investigation, the Investigating
  Officer found a suicide note which had been written by the
  deceased and upon reading this, it seems evident that he held
  the appellant responsible for his death, by way of committing
  suicide.

C        D. During the said investigation, the statement of various
   persons including that of the widow of the deceased, and also
  those of his other family members, were recorded and they all
   supported the version of events, as was given by the deceased
   in his suicide note which made it amply clear that according to
D him, the appellant was solely responsible for his death. Upon
  conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet
  No.208/2005 on 5.11.2005 against the appellant under Section
  306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
  the 'IPC').
E
        E. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a Criminal Misc.
  Application No. 420 of 2006 under Section 482 Cr.PC. on
  13.6.2006 for the purpose of quashing the said chargesheet,
  and also the other proceedings incidental thereto. The High
F Court granted stay of such proceedings, initiated on the basis
  of the said charge-sheet, as an interim measure. However, vide
  impugned judgment and order dated 5.1.2012, the said
  application was then dismissed.

        Hence, the present appeal.
G
       4. Shri U.U. Lalit and Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned
  senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, have
  submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case
  do not actually make out any offence against the appellant as
H far as Section 306 IPC is concerned. They have submitted that,
PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTIRANCHAL & 1135
        ANR. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

even if the allegations made out in the FIR/charge-sheet, are        A
taken on their face value, and accepted in entirety, the same
do not prima facie, constitute any offence against the appellant.
In a case under Section 306/107 IPC, establishment and
attribution of mens rea, on the part of the accused which
caused him to incite the deceased to commit suicide is of great      B
importance. The cruelty shown towards the deceased in such
cases, must be of such magnitude, that it would in all likelihood,
drive the deceased to commit suicide. The utterances of a few
 harsh words on one occasion, for that matter a suggestion
 being made with the intention of improving work, does not           c
amount to harassment/cruelty of such intensity, that it may be
 termed as abetment to commit suicide. Hence, the appeal
 deserves to be allowed.

     5. Per contra, Shri Rahul Verma, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-State, has vehemently opposed           D
the appeal, contending that the appellant would persistently and
consistently harass the deceased to compel him to do various
illegal things and that it was not an isolated instance of
harassment, or an occasional off hand remark that was made
by the appellant in relation to the deceased. As the deceased        E
had refused to fulfil the illegal demands of the appellant, the
appellant made his life extremely difficult, by humiliating him
constantly which eventually drove him to .commit suicide.
Therefore, the facts of the case being as explained above, do
not warrant any interference with the impugned judgment and          F
order of the High Court. The appeal is, hence, liable to be
dismissed.

     6. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
                                                                     G
     7. In the FIR, the complainant, who is the brother of the
deceased, made several allegations against the appellant, all
of which, have also been mirrored in the suicide note left behind
by the deceased, and it is also evident from the FIR that the
deceased had intimated his family members regarding the ill-         H
    1136     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012) 8 S.C.R.


A treatment and harassment constantly meted out to him, by the
  appellant. The deceased was very perturbed and the same is
  evident from the suicide note which reads as under:

              "/ am dying due to Praveen Pradhan. He has done
         too much atrocities. He is very cunning man. He always
B
         humiliated-exploired me all the time. He made me
         demoralised and made my self respect hurt too much.

               He has hurled Mr. O.P. Agaral (KPGI) and Mr. CRK
         Gaur (Project Consultant). These persons also had to go
c        before time due to him. He always hurts other's feelings
         as he is a egoistic and cruel man.

              I have been daily hurted my self respect. He is
         always scolding me. I have to die solely due to him.
D              I have told my feelings to Mr. Pavan and Mr. Raghu
        earlier. But his attitude do not change. He always scolded
        and demoralised me. Even in front of Amit (Jaymit) he
        insulted me. He $aid Anurag is a "chutiya" as he is working
        for him and he doubted my dignity. I can't tolerate any way
E       to my dignity.

               He always forced me to resign. This can be verified
        from Mr. Minesh Dakwe (who is in Mahindra) that he
        forced me to resign. His attitude can be verified from other
F       officers of factory. He is proving me faulty and incompetent
        after completing entire project work successfully."

                                                (Emphasis added)

       A plain and simple reading of this suicide note makes it
G crystal clear that the appellant had not just humiliated and
  insulted the deceased on one occasion. In fact, it is evident that
  the appellant perpetually humiliated, exploited and de-moralised
  the deceased, which hurt his self-respect tremendously. The
  words used are, to the effect that the appellant always hurt the
H
PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL & 1137
        ANR. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

self-respect of the deceased and he was always scolding him.         A
The appellant always made attempts to force him to resign.

     8. The statements recorded by the police under Section
161 Cr.PC., particularly, one made by Smt. Kavita Singh,
widow of the deceased and also those of various other family         B
members, corroborate the version of events, as given in his
suicide note. Therefore, the question that arises is whether the
court would be justified in quashing the chargesheet filed
against the accused, in the instant case.

     9. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of MP. & Anr, (1995)           C
Supp (3) SCC 438, a similar question arose before this Court
wherein one Sushila Bai, a married woman allegedly had two
paramours. There was sexual jealousy between the two. Sushila
had managed to completely bewitch one of them. In one fine
morning, while Sushila Bai was having her morning tea with both      D
her paramours, they began to quarrel. During the course of such
quarrelling, one of them made a remark asking the other "to
go and die". The other person to whom ' .such remark was
made, went home very dejected and thereafter, committed
suicide. This Court held as under:                                   E

           "In the first place, it is difficult in the facts and
     circumstances, to come to even a prima facie view that
     what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate
     the deceased to commit suicide. Those words are casual
     in nature which are often employed in the heat of the
                                                                     F
     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. Besides, the deceased
     had plenty of time to weigh the pros and cons of the act        G
     by which he ultimately ended his life. It cannot be said that
     the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the
     words uttered by the appellant."

     10. In Sanju@ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of MP., AIR          H
     1138    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 8 S.C.R.


A 2002 SC 1998, a quarrel had taken place between the accused
   and the deceased during which, the accused asked the
  deceased "to go and die". A chargesheet was filed against the
  accused under Section 306 r/w Section 107 IPC when the said
  person actually committed suicide. This Court dealt with the
B issue elaborately, taking into consideration the fact that the
  accused had also specifically been named in the suicide note
  left behind by the deceased, and held that merely asking a
  person "to go and die" does not in itself amount to instigation
  and also does not reflect mens rea, which is a necessary
c concomitant of instigation. The deceased was anyway in great
  distress and depression. The other evidence on record showed
  him to be a frustrated man who was in the habit of drinking.
  Thus, considering the said circumstances, this Court quashed
  the proceedings against the accused, holding that ingredients
  of abetment were not fulfilled therein.
0
          11. In Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr.,
     (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court re-examined this question, in a
     similar case, involving Sections 306/107 IPC, wherein the
    deceased left a suicide note stating that the accused was solely
E    responsible for his death. The deceased in this case, was a
    driver in the Microwave Project Department. He had undergone
    a bypass surgery for his heart, just before the occurrence of
    such incident and his doctor had advised him against
    performing any stressful duties. The accused was a superior
F   officer to the deceased. When the deceased failed to comply
    with the orders of the accused, the accused became very angry
    and threatened to suspend the deceased, rebuking him very
    harshly for not listening to him. The accused also asked the
    deceased how he still found the will to live, despite being
G   insulted so. The driver after all this, committed suicide. This
    Court found that such incident was a one time occurrence. For
    the purpose of bringing home any charge, vis-a-vis Section 306/
    107 IPC against the accused, this Court stated that there must
    be allegations to the effect that the accused had either
H   instigated the decea.sed in some way, to commit suicide or had
PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL &1139
        ANR. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

engaged with some other persons in a conspiracy to do so, or        A
that the accused had in some way aided any act or illegal
omission to cause the said suicide. In the said case, this court,
after assessing the material on record, found that the deceased
was suffering from mental imbalance which caused depression.
The accused had never intended for the deceased employed            8
under him to commit suicide. This court observed that if the
making of observations by a superior officer, regarding the
work of his subordinate, is termed as abetment to suicide, it
would become almost impossible, for superior officers to
discharge their duties as senior employees.
                                                                    c
     12. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi), AIR 2010 SC 1446, this Court while dealing with
the term 'instigation' held:

           "Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite   D
    or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
    "instigation", though 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           E
    consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where
    the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued
    course of conduct, created such circumstances that the
    deceased was left with no other option except to commit
    suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be
                                                                    F
    inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
    intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be
    said to be instigation.

           Thus, to constitute 'instigation', a person who
     instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or             G
     encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading"
     or 'urging forward'. The dictionary meaning of the word
     "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action;
     provoke to action or reaction ..... to keep irritating or
     annoying somebody until he reacts."                            H
    1140    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A        13. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh,
    AIR 2001 SC 3837, while dealing with a similar situation
    observed that what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily and
    specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable
    certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being
8   spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create
    such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
    option but to commit suicide.

        14. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon
  the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which
C is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be
  by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under
  Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger
  or omission without any intention cannot be termed as
  instigation. (Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC
D 1532; Surender v. State of Hayana, (2006) 12 SCC 375;
  Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti
  Rama Krishna v. Santi Shanti Sree, AIR 2009 SC 923.)

        15. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that
E instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a
  particular case. No straight-jacket formula can be laid down to
  find out as to whether in a particular case there has been
  instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a
  particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to
F instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore,
  in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the
  circumstances and it is to be determined whether
  circumstances had been such which in fact had created the
  situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed
  suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing
G of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather
  a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to
  under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

       16. Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light
H of aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case,
PRAVEEN PRADHAN v. STATE OF UTTRANCHAL &1141
        ANR. [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather              A
remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of
a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married
woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and
therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased
in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and        B
still suffered persistent h;;rassment and humiliation and
additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands
made by the appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he would
be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period
of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for a long      c
durations in the factory, vis-a-vis other employees which often
even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment,
coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, "had there
been any other person in his place, he would have certainly
committed suicide" is what makes the present case distinct            D
from the aforementioned cases considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, we do not think it is a case
which requires any interference by this court as regards the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The appeal
is, therefore, dismissed accordingly.
                                                                      E
      Before parting with the case, we would clarify that none of
the observations made hereinabove would have adverse effect
on the rights of the appellant in any of the proceedings during
trial as such observations have been made only and only to
decide this case.                                                     F

K.K.T.                                        Appeal dismissed.