MADAN MOHAN SINGH versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 351 · Decided: 17-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 351 
MADAN MOHAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1291 of 2008) 
AUGUST 17, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 -
ss. 306 and 294(b) -
Driver 
employed in a project, found dead - Purported suicide note 
A 
B 
in which deceased stated that he was being harassed and C 
rebuked by his officer - FIR - Prosecution of officer for 
offences punishable u/ss.306 and 294(b) - Challenge to -
Held: On facts, the origin itself of the suicide note was 
suspicious - Even otherwise, no nexus or proximity found 
between the so-called suicide and any of the alleged acts on 
D 
the part of the officer -
The a/legations made could not 
reasonably be viewed as suggesting that the officer had 
intended or engineered the suicide of the deceased by his 
acts and words - The FIR itself did not have any material nor 
could it be viewed as having material for offence under ss. 306 E 
and 294(b) - FIR and further proceedings accordingly 
quashed. 
Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 306 -
Prosecution under -
Requirement of specific abetment as contemplated by s.107 
on the part of the accused, with an intention to bring out the 
F 
suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment 
- Held: The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or 
to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for the 
offence u/s. 306. 
The complainant's husband, who was employed in 
a Microwave project as a driver, was found dead in a 
vehicle. Twenty four days thereafter the FIR was lodged, 
wherein reference was made to a purported suicide note 
G 
351 
H 
352 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
written by the deceased. The complainant alleged that the 
deceased's superior (appellant) used to tell his private 
errands to the deceased, which he did not do, and 
consequently the appellant had bias against the 
deceased, and insulted him in front of the staff several 
B 
times and because of this, the deceased got depressed 
and committed suicide. 
Prosecution was initiated against the appellant for 
offences punishable under Sections 306 and 294(b), IPC. 
He filed petition under Section 482 CrPC which was 
C dismissed by the High Court. 
The appellant contended before the Supreme Court 
that even if the suicide note is accepted as it is, alongwith 
the FIR, no ingredients of Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC 
D could be spelt out from the same. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The so-called suicide note was signed on 
4.2.2008, wherein the complainant's husband (the 
E 
deceased) had complained about the stale incidents 
dated 15.10.2007 to 19.10.2007. A number of days 
thereafter, he was found dead 23.2.2008. It is claimed by 
the complainant that she got a call from the Gujarat High 
Court informing her that a suicide note was found and 
F 
that she should search for such note in her house, 
subsequent to which she claimed to have found the 
suicide note, bearing the signature of her husband (the 
deceased), thus bringing the origin of the alleged suicide 
note under the cloud of suspicion. [Para 7] [358-F-H] 
G 
1.2. As regards the suicide note, which is a document 
of about 15 pages, all that can be said is that it is an 
anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss 
(the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the 
H FIR cannot be depicted as expressing anything 
MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND 353 
ANR. 
intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased 
A 
might commit suicide. There is nothing in the FIR or in 
the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as 
abetment to commit suicide. It is clear from a microscopic 
examination of the suicide note that it is a rhetoric 
document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It B 
also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the 
deceased which he himself describes as depression. 
From the so-called suicide note, it cannot be inferred that 
the appellant ever intended that the driver under him, i.e. 
the complainant's husband, should commit suicide or c 
should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even 
if it is accepted that the appellant changed the duty of the 
driver or that the appellant asked him not to take the keys 
of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office 
itself, it does not mean that the appellant intended or D 
knew that the driver should commit suicide because of 
this. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, 
IPC, specific abetm

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.