CASE ANALYSIS SANJAY SINGH SENGAR V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Authors:

Navnee Gulati, Lloyd Law College

Vanshika Malik, Ramaiah College of Law, Bangalore

Editor:

Shristi Singh, UWSL, Karnavati University

INTRODUCTION:

Chapter 5 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with offenses recognized with abetment. Abetment essentially implies the activity of inciting, empowering or advancing an individual into submitting an offense. It can likewise mean supporting the wrongdoer while he is perpetrating wrongdoing. At the point when more than one individual adds to submitting an offense, every individual's association may shift. This variety might be either in the way or in how much the association happens. For instance, one individual may secure a firearm and hand it over to another who may shoot someone with it. The previous individual is liable for abetment, while the last submit murder. The meaning of abetment under Section 107, IPC requires an individual to abet the commission of an offense. This abetment may happen in any of the three strategies that the arrangement endorses. The Section says that abetment essentially happens when an individual abets the doing of a thing by:-

1. affecting an individual to do that thing; or

2. drawing in with someone else (or people) in a scheme to do that thing; or

3. Deliberately helping an individual to do that thing.

At the point when any of these necessities exists, the offense of abetment is finished. In some cases, an individual may submit more than one of these three conditions in a solitary offense. The abetment of specific offenses is culpable under explicit Sections of IPC or under different laws. For instance, the abetment of suicide is culpable under Section 306. Nonetheless, when no particular arrangement exists, the abettor will be rebuffed with the discipline recommended for that specific offense he has abetted.

CASE FACTS:

The petitioner is the sibling of Neelam Sengar, spouse of the expired Chander Bhushan @ Babloo. It is expressed that the marriage between the sister of the appealing party and the expired occurred in 1993. It is likewise expressed that the following marriage she was exposed to nonstop sick therapy by the expired and the relatives compelling her to live independently alongside her better half and kids for about a year. From that point, she went to her folks' home and begun living with her sibling the petitioner thus. Around two months preceding the episode, the petitioner prompted the perished to return his sister to her wedding house and treat her appropriately. On 25th July 1998 (critical date), it is expressed that the petitioner visited the spot of the guardians of the expired and begged them that his sister ought to be restored in the wedding home and ought not to be genuinely abused or bothered. It is likewise affirmed that on that day the petitioner additionally said to have compromised the guardians of the expired that on the off chance that they don't patch their conduct towards his sister, he would be constrained to depend on recording an objection under Section 498 An of the Indian Penal Code, to which the guardians of the perished communicated defenselessness as the expired Chander Bhushan had been living independently from them. It is additionally expressed that on this story being described to the perished by the mother of the expired requesting that he brings back his better half to keep away from any police argument against them, the expired went to the place of the guardians of the petitioner followed by a squabble between them. From there on, the expired returned alone and told his siblings and different associates that the petitioner had undermined and mishandled him by utilizing tarnished words. On the following date, for example, 27th July 1998, the perished was discovered hanging with a rope by the neck on the heap of his home and he was discovered dead. The expired likewise left a suicide note on a wanderer bit of wrapping paper. The examination on the body of the perished was hung on 27th July 1998 itself and it was uncovered that the demise was because of asphyxia because of hanging, inside 24 hours. The researching official recorded articulation of the observers under Section 161 Cr.P.C. furthermore, after fruition of the examination, presented the charge-sheet and a charge was confined on second July 2001 against the appealing party for an offense under Section 306 I.P.C

ISSUES:

· Consideration of the definition of Abetment.

· Does the word 'instigate' denote incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite?

· Is the presence of Mens Rea, necessary concomitant of instigation?

· Does abetment by instigation require some active involvement of the abettor towards the preparatory phase of the crime?

JUDGEMENT

The honorable court in the above judgment considered the definition of abetment stated in Section 107 I.P.C which defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.The court concluded that the charge of abetment under section 306 of the Indian penal code is not maintainable and the said allegations merely on the harassment of the deceased are not valid. The ingredients of abetment are not justified by the deceased in his statement. The honorable court took examples of many landmark judgments for a deeper understanding of the concept of abetment. In the case of Swamy Prahalad’s v. State of M.P. & Anr. , 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438 where the appellant was charged for the offense under section 306 of IPC where during a mere quarrel appellant said the deceased to go and die. The court explained that the mere utterance of words by the accused is not enough to instigate the accused to take such a bold decision and commit suicide.

In another landmark judgment of Mahendra Singh v. the State of M.P.,1995Supp, (3)SCC731, there was a dying declaration by the decease which reads as: "My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning. “The court analyzed the definition of abetment under section 107 of IPC and concluded the charges in the case for the conviction of the appellant under section 306 is not sustainable merely on the fact of an allegation of harassment to deceased and neither the ingredients of abetment are fulfilled on the declaration statement of the deceased.Time and again honorable courts have beautifully explained that any word or statement which is uttered in a fit of anger or any other raging emotion where the intention is not actually parallel to the consequences cannot be said to be instigation. For the mentioned case court erroneously accepted the story of the prosecution that the commitment of suicide by the deceased is in direct result of the quarrel which took place on 25th July 1998 where the appellant used certain abusive words and told the deceased to go and die. The court relied on the statement made by Shashi Bhushan, (brother of the deceased) made under section 161 Cr.P.C. The acceptance of the statement of prosecution itself does not form the ingredient of ‘instigation’. Firstly, the court focused and elaborated the word ‘instigate denotes urging someone to do some drastic or unadvisable action or stimulation for the same. The presence of mens rea is of utmost importance for the commitment of an offense of instigation. The words spoken in the rage of quarrel or in a spur of the moment are not to be taken in view of mens rea. It is a mere fit of anger or emotion. Secondly, the court explained that the usage of abusive words was done on 25th July 1998 which were the result of a quarrel, and the deceased was found hanging on 27th July 1998. If the deceased had taken the abusive words seriously it is assumed that he had enough time gap in between to think over before taking any action, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the use of abusive words drove the deceased to commit suicide. After reading the suicide note of the deceased the honorable court mentioned that it clearly seems that the deceased was under great stress and depression. Keeping in mind the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition, the court concluded that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct which is duly unconnected with the quarrel which took place on 25th July 1998. The deceased alone, and no one else is responsible for his death. The offense under section 306 I.P.C was quashed!

CONCLUSION

The intention is discerned from acts of the accused in proving any crime. Multiple rulings of court[1] including this on affirm that instigation and involvement of the accused must be in strong connection for the constitution of charge of any offence!

[1]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/393648/#:~:text=State%20of%20M.P.%2C%201995%20Supp,beat%20me%20and%20abused%20me.

44 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All