Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 507 (RAJ)

Kadar Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2004-04-05

N.N.MATHUR

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - -Instant petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra dated 22.3.2003 framing charges against the petitioners 'for offence under sections 451, 352 and 306 Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 23.7.2002 at 4.15 a.m. one Haider Khan informed the SHO Police Station Mandli that Bhanware Khan has committed suicide by hanging. Similar report was received from Nasir Khan on 24.7.2002. On this information police registered a case and started inquiry under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 14.8.2002 one Rahim Khan submitted a report in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra alleging therein that there was dispute between his deceased brother Bhanware Khan and the petitioner herein Kadar Khan. On 7.7.2002 the petitioner herein visited the dhani of deceased-Bhanware Khan and talked to his wife with respect of cow. On 23.7.2002, Kadar Khan and Haider Khan again visited the dhani of Bhanware Khan and took away the cow alongwith calf. The matter was reported on Bhanware Khan by his wife Jamni and Nasir Khan. Thereafter, Bhanware Khan went to the dhani of petitioners herein. He asked the petitioners to return his cow. He threatened him that if the cow is not returned, he will commit suicide in front of their house. Later on, it was found that deceased-Bhanwar Khan committed suicide by suspending his body from the branch of Khejar tree. Learned Magistrate sent the complaint for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the SHO Police Station, Madli. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet against the petitioners for offence under sections 451, 392 and 306 Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate by the impugned order has framed the charges against the petitioners for offence under sections 451, 392 and 306 Indian Penal Code. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. The interesting question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts of the case even accepting the allegation against the petitioners to be true on its face value, the petitioners can be charged for the offence of abetting the suicide? 4. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. The interesting question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts of the case even accepting the allegation against the petitioners to be true on its face value, the petitioners can be charged for the offence of abetting the suicide? 4. Offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 is confined to the case of the person who acts and abets the commission of suicide by the hands of person himself who commits the suicide. Abetment can be by omission or commission by certain act. The act of omission would be to instigate or bring about a person to do an act. Thus, there must be some instigation amounting to provocation to do some act. In the instant case the deceased gave a threat that if the petitioners do not return his cow, he will commit suicide in front of their house. In ordinate course of event, such a threat could not said to be intended to be taken seriously. It may be emanated in the heat of moment or out of anger or disgust. None of these by themselves would be sufficient to justify a charge of abetment in absence of other material. A person cannot be held to be responsible and charged for abetting suicide simply because the victim was too sensitive or a person of poor mental fibre. 5. In my view, petitioners cannot be held even prima facie responsible for the act of suicide of deceased Bhanware Khan. The trial Court has committed gross illegality in framing charges against them under section 306 Indian Penal Code. Similarly, there is no material on the record for framing charge under sections 451 and 352 Indian Penal Code. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 22.3.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Balotra framing charges against the petitioners for offence under sections 451 and 352 and 396 Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. The petitioners stands discharged.Revision petition allowed. *******