Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 744 (MP)

Salim v. State of M. P.

2004-09-06

S.L.KOCHAR

body2004
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS revision has been filed by the applicants aggrieved of the order dated 28-7-2004 passed by V ASJ, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No. 158/2004 whereby the learned Judge has framed charge under Sections 306/34 of IPC against the applicants. ( 2. ) THE police of Police Station, Neelganga, District Ujjain has filed a charge-sheet against the applicants under Section 306/34 of IPC. According to the prosecution case, deceased Dayaram alongwith five other persons had raised loan for about rupees two lakhs from the District Antvyavasayik Sahakari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, Ujjain and bought a Commander Jeep. After paying some instalments, deceased Dayaram sold the said Jeep before 10-11 months prior to the incident to applicants Ayyub @ Bhaiyu and Salim. Both the applicants paid him Rs. 35,000/and assured him of paying the rest of the instalments of the vehicle to the Bank. It is also alleged that the sale deed to this effect was also executed and the papers were lying somewhere in the house. The applicants did not pay the balance loan amount to the Society and have also hidden the vehicle because of which deceased was disturbed. The deceased asked the applicants to pay the dues of the Society but the applicants abused him and told him that they would not pay the dues and also were not having Jeep with them. It is further alleged that one day prior to the incident, deceased asked the applicants to pay the dues and if they would not pay the dues, he will have to die. On this assertion of the deceased, the applicants have told him to die and in that event they would not require to pay the balance instalments. The applicants also demanded the sale documents of the vehicle and on his refusal they threatened him. On the next day, in the morning, suddenly Dayarams health deteriorated. He was taken to hospital where he died because of consuming of some poisonous substance. The police has seized the death note said to have been written by the deceased in which he has mentioned that the Society has raised recovery of loan amount of Rs. 2,44,713/- because of which he is committing suicide. His friends and relations should not be harassed and he sold the said Jeep to Ayyub @ Bhaiyu, resident of lohe Ka Pul who had committee fraud with him. ( 3. 2,44,713/- because of which he is committing suicide. His friends and relations should not be harassed and he sold the said Jeep to Ayyub @ Bhaiyu, resident of lohe Ka Pul who had committee fraud with him. ( 3. ) THE learned Counsel for applicants put forth that even if the complete prosecution case is accepted as it is, no case is made out for framing the charge against the applicants. The learned Trial Court, without considering the true prospect of law of framing of charge, mechanically framed the same for the offence under Sections 306/34 of IPC against the applicants. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment passed in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M. P. [2002 SCC (Cri) 1141] and judgment passed by Single Judge of M. P. High Court in Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of M. P. (2003 MPWN Vol. I 34 ). ( 4. ) AS against this, the learned Dy. A. G. Shri Desai for the State took this Court through the death note and the statements of the prosecution witnesses Nabi @ Harinarayan, Satyanarayan, Shakuntala and Rajni. As per statement of Nabi @ Harinarayan, on 20-11-2003 in the evening between 7-8 p. m. applicants came to the house of deceased Dayaram and demanded the documents. They were talking loudly and also threatening the deceased. At that juncture, witness Nabi @ Harinarayan, residing at some distance from the house of Dayaram, was returning to his house. He asked Dayaram on which Dayaran disclosed before him that he had purchased the Jeep after raising loan from the Bank and on recommendation by applicant Salim, sold the same to applicant Ayyub for Rs. 35,000/- and they agreed to pay balance instalments of the Jeep to the Bank but now they are not paying the instalments and always issuing threat to him. They were also saving that: Deceased was very much harassed by them. This witness thereafter pacified the applicants upon which both had left the house of the deceased and Dayaram was very much perturbed. He also told him that he was in great tension. On the next day morning, this witness came to know that Dayaram had committed suicide after consuming some poisonous substance. More or less same are the statements of Satyanarayan who is the brother of the deceased and Shakuntala, wife of the deceased. 4. He also told him that he was in great tension. On the next day morning, this witness came to know that Dayaram had committed suicide after consuming some poisonous substance. More or less same are the statements of Satyanarayan who is the brother of the deceased and Shakuntala, wife of the deceased. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie material for framing of charge is available in the charge-sheet filed by the police under Section 173 of the Cr. PC against the applicants under Section 306/34 of IPC. In the statements of Satyanarayan and Nabi, recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr. PC, it has come on record that the Jeep was sold to the applicants by the deceased but the documents were not given to them. The applicants were not depositing the loan amount to the Bank as agreed upon because of which the deceased was perturbed and whenever he was asking for depositing instalments to the applicants, they were abusing him and also saying that Jeep is not with them and they will also not deposit the instalments, whatever deceased could do, may do. On their refusal, deceased said them that if you will not deposit the instalments he will have to die upon which they had told him that it would be better if he would die, all the instalments would be written off. ( 5. ) LOOKING to the statements of Satyanarayan, Nabi @ Harinarayan who is the independent witness and the statement of Shakuntala vis-a-vis death note left by the deceased, it is clear that the applicants were harassing the deceased for giving documents of Jeep and also telling him to die so that they would not require to pay the instalments. They did not behave like this once but it was their repeated behaviour alongwith quarrel and threatening. On 20-11-2003 in the night between 7-8 p. m. again the applicants came to the house of the deceased Dayaram and picked up quarrel with him, demanded documents and on refusal by him, they threatened him and also told him to die so that they may not require to deposit the instalments, they were also not returning the Jeep and hidden the same. In the same night, the deceased consumed some poisonous substance. ( 6. In the same night, the deceased consumed some poisonous substance. ( 6. ) IN the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for applicants rendered by Supreme Court in case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased in which the appellant was said to have told the deceased to go and die. Deceased found dead after two days and deceased was not doing any work. Under these circumstances the Supreme Court has held that suicide was not proximate to the quarrel. More or less the same are the facts in the case of Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma (supra ). On facts, both the cases are quite distinguishable. ( 7. ) IN the present case, statements of Nabi @ Harinarayan and Satyanarayan are disclosing the continuity of quarrel on account of non-deposit of instalments as well as hiding of Jeep and demand of documents of Jeep by the applicants as well as telling him to die. Immediately before commission of suicide both the applicants, between 7-8 p. m. in the night, came to the house of the deceased, demanded documents and on refusal, threatened him and also told him to die. This appears to be the repeated behaviour of the applicants with the deceased and at the same time deceased was receiving demand notice from the Bank. The quarrel between the applicants and the deceased was not casual and saying to deceased to die was also not once, but repeatedly during altercations prior to the commission of suicide by the deceased. In the instant case, it has also come on record that the deceased was running a controlled shop at Shastri Nagar, Ujjain. ( 8. ) UNDER Section 228 of the Cr. PC, the Trial Court is required to sec on the basis of the material in the charge-sheet whether prima facie case for framing of charge against the accused is made out or not. For this purpose, any hard and fast rule or law can not be framed, it is depend upon the material available in each case and even if there is strong suspicion against the accused persons, the charge is to be framed. The Supreme Court has expressed this opinion in catena of judgments. ( 9. ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed.