The Supreme Court expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a person shooting themselves in the chest with a rifle in a case initially deemed a suicide by the Madhya Pradesh Police. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan remarked: “To our understanding whether a person would be able to use a rifle to shoot himself on the chest needs examination. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to require the State to file an affidavit whether the investigating agency has investigated all aspects of the matter including possibility of a murder.”
The case involves the death of the petitioner’s 17-year-old son, enrolled in a shotgun shooting training course at an academy in Bhopal. The prosecution initially concluded the death was a suicide, with the deceased allegedly using a rifle to shoot himself in the chest. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2, accused under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide), based on this conclusion. However, the Supreme Court questioned the plausibility of the suicide narrative and directed the state to submit an affidavit detailing the investigation, including the possibility of murder, along with the autopsy report, seized rifle details, and its length.
The petitioner alleges that respondent No.2 and other students at the academy accused the deceased of stealing Rs. 40,000, leading to threats, physical assault, and the seizure of his phone to send coerced guilt-admitting messages. The petitioner claims this harassment drove his son to suicide. The deceased reportedly informed a friend and his sister of his intent to take his life and left a suicide note implicating respondent No.2 and other students. An FIR was filed approximately a month later under Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. While the Sessions Court denied anticipatory bail to respondent No.2, the High Court granted it, prompting the petitioner’s appeal.
The petitioner argues that the High Court downplayed the suicide, wrongly blamed the deceased for succumbing to pressure, and incorrectly recorded his age as 18 instead of 17, potentially attracting a graver charge of abetment of a minor’s suicide. Additionally, it is alleged that respondent No.2, from an influential family, evaded investigation, necessitating custodial interrogation.
Appearances included Advocates Sumeer Sodhi, Varun Tankha, Inder Dev Singh, Vipul Tiwari, and Harshit Bari for the petitioner, and Deputy Advocate General V.V.V. Pattabhiram, Advocates Mrinal Gopal Elker, Gautam Singh, and Aditya Chaudhary for the respondents.
Case Title: Arun Kumar Raghuwanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 9053/2025
Click Here for Full Judgment.
Lawcutor 