'Can A Person Shoot Himself On Chest With Rifle?' : Supreme Court Asks MP Police In Death Case Treated As Suicide
Questioning whether it is possible for a person to shoot himself in the chest with a rifle, the Supreme Court yesterday called on the Madhya Pradesh Police in a death case treated as a suicide whether all relevant aspects had been probed - including possibility of a murder.
"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", a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan observed.
From the case of the prosecution, it seemed as though the deceased died by suicide by using a rifle to shoot himself on the chest. In that view of the matter, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2-accused under Section 306 of IPC.
The Supreme Court however was doubtful whether a person can shoot himself in the chest using a rifle. As such, it called for the state's affidavit, the autopsy report of the deceased as well as the material collected during investigation. The affidavit shall disclose details about the seizure and length of the rifle, it said.
The case pertains to the petitioner's son (stated to have been 17 years old), who got enrolled in a shotgun shooting training course at an Academy in Bhopal. A dispute arose between him and respondent No.2, as the latter accused him of stealing Rs.40,000.
As per allegations, respondent No.2 and other students at the Academy threatened the petitioner's son to admit his guilt. They snatched his phone and sent messages admitting guilt as well as beat him up. Depressed by their conduct and unable to handle the pressure, the petitioner's son took his life.
Before the fateful incident, the deceased told one of his friends and his sister that he was committing suicide. He even left a suicide note with his friend blaming the students at the Academy (including respondent No.2). An FIR was registered after about a month under Section 107 of BNS. At first, respondent No.2's anticipatory bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court. However, vide the impugned order, he was granted the relief by the High Court.
According to the petitioner, the High Court not merely trivialized the incident of suicide of his son, but also blamed the deceased for not being able to handle the pressure and defended the actions of the accused. It is claimed that the High Court erred in taking the age of the deceased as 18, though he was 17 years old at the time, and hence graver offense of abetment of suicide of a minor was attracted. The petitioner also contends that respondent No.2 belongs to an influential family and his custodial interrogation is required as he did not join investigation even after the FIR was registered.
Appearance: AoR Sumeer Sodhi, Advocates Varun Tankha, Inder Dev Singh, Vipul Tiwari, and Harshit Bari (for petitioner); DAG V.V.V. Pattabhiram, AoR Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocates Gautam Singh and Aditya Chaudhary (for respondents)
Case Title: ARUN KUMAR RAGHUWANSHI VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR., SLP(Crl) No.9053/2025