Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 203 (MP)

Chhotelal v. State of M. P.

2003-01-30

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2003
ORDER 1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.1994 passed by the learned X Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 195/94 framing charge against the applicants under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), the applicants have preferred this revision petition. 2. In brief the case of prosecution is that the applicant Vijay fell in love with the prosecutrix Ku. Urmila Bai (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') but, refused to solemnize the legal marriage with her. It is said that on 25.12.1993 when the deceased came to the house of accused Vijay, he and his father Chhotelal both had beaten the deceased and thereafter gave filthy abuses to her. As a result of which, she came back to her house and committed suicide by hanging herself. 3. Before committing the suicide, she wrote a suicidal note which has been filed along with the challan papers. The suicidal not reads as under: ^^eSa mfeZyk vius c;ku ns jgh gwW D;ksafd NksVsyky ds csVs fot; us eq>ls izse fookg fd;k FkkA vc og eqdj x;k gS efgyk Fkkus esa eSaus fot; dk lkeku okfil djus xbZ Fkh D;ksafd eSa fot; ls cksyh Fkh rks og cksyk fd esjs ?kj NksM+ tkÅW rks mlds ckcw us eq>s cgqr xanh&xanh xkyh nh vkSj cgqr ekjk gS eq>s cnkZ’r ugha gqvk eSa pkgrh gWw fd esjs ejus ds ckn NksVsyky dks fdlh Hkh fder esa ugha NksM+uk mls mldh ltk feyuk pkfg, vkSj esjs ?kj esa yksxks dks dqN Hkh ugha cksyuk D;ksafd eSa vyx jgrh gWwA bu yksxksa ls esjk cSj ugha gS vkt lqcg 12 cts Vkbe mlus eq>s ekjk eSa vkRegR;k ejus tk jgh gWw efgyk iqfyl esa esjh dksbZ lquokbz ugha dh xbZ fd fot; us >wB cksy dj cp x;k gS vc esjh lquokbZ t:j djuk vkSj blds cki dks ltk t:j nsuk D;ksafd eSa budh ckr esa ugha vkbZ ;s eq>s >wB cksyus ds fy, dg jgs FksA ij eSusa lp&lp cksyh gWw iqfyl ds lkeusA^^ 4. The investigating agency, after completing the inquiry, filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court which committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was sent to the trial Court for the trial. 5. The investigating agency, after completing the inquiry, filed a charge-sheet before the competent Court which committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where it was sent to the trial Court for the trial. 5. The learned trial Judge felt that there is sufficient material so as to frame charge punishable under section 306 of the IPC against the applicants and for this reason, framed the charge under the said section against the applicants, and thus the applicants had preferred this revision petition. 6. In this case, Shri L.N. Sakle and Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants have contended that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken into consideration, no case is made out for framing the charge under section 306, IPC. Learned counsel for the applicants placed heavy reliance upon a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = (2002) 5 SCC 371 ]. They further placed reliance upon the cases of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. and another [1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438], Ramnaresh v. State of M.P. [ 2002 (2) MPLJ 360 ], Vedprakash v. State of M.P. [ 1994 JLJ 758 = 1995 MPLJ 458 ], Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2001 (2) BLJ 113 = AIR 2001 SC 3837 ], Deepak Raghunathrao Shohle @ Shole v. State of M.P. [1993 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 153 = 1993 MPLJ 729 ] and Dr. Mangleshwar Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2002 (4) MPHT 140 ]. On the basis of these case law, it has been put forth by them that the ingredients of section 107, IPC are not made out in the charge-sheet and therefore no charge under section 306, IPC can be framed. 7. Per contra, Shri R.N. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has contended that the trial Court did not commit any error in framing the charge against the applicants and the revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 9. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 9. The prosecution has filed challan against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 306, IPC, which reads as under: "If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 10. The word 'abetment' has been defined in section 107, IPC, which reads as under: "107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who -- First -- 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." Under section 109, IPC, punishment of abetment has been provided, which reads as under: "109. Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. Explanation -- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment." 11. Making a person liable for an offence punishable under section 306, IPC, the prosecution has to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide. Unless the alleged act of an accused falls under any of the three categories of acts enumerated in section 107, IPC, the same would not amount to abetment. Whatever evidence has been collected by the prosecution, including the suicidal note, is not sufficient in order to bring the applicants under the ambit of section 107, IPC. 12. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas (supra), the accused allegedly remared to the deceased, 'go and die', thereafter deceased went home and committed suicide. Whatever evidence has been collected by the prosecution, including the suicidal note, is not sufficient in order to bring the applicants under the ambit of section 107, IPC. 12. In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas (supra), the accused allegedly remared to the deceased, 'go and die', thereafter deceased went home and committed suicide. It was held, suicide was not the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant and Sessions Court erred in summoning the appellant to face the trial. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings against the accused. This judgment has been relied upon by the Apex Court in a later pronouncement in the case of Sanju (supra). In para 14 (15), the Supreme Court has held as under: "A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt. Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under section 161, Cr. PC before the investigation officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26.7.1998, her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25.7.1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26.7.1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25.7.1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under section 306, IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under section 306, IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25.7.1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, who is responsible for his death." The Supreme Court, by allowing the appeal of the accused, quashed the charge framed by Additional Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under section 306, IPC. The similar view has been taken by this similar in several judgments which are referred hereinabove. 13. This Court, in Dr. Mangleshwar Singh (supra), followed the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Swamy Prahhaladdas (supra). 14. In the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar [ AIR 1979 SC 366 ], the Apex Court while discussing the scope of section 227, Cr. PC, has held as under: "That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code, the Judge, which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Court, cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on." 15. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court erred in law in framing charge punishable under section 306, IPC against the appellants and thus the impugned order suffers from illegality and is hereby set aside. 16. In the result, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 16.8.1994 passed by X Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framing the charge under section 306, IPC against the applicants is quashed.