Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1131 (MP)

Girja Shankar v. State of M. P.

2006-09-21

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2006
ORDER 1. Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 21.6.2006, passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2005, whereby the charges under section 306 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code have been framed against him. 2. According to prosecution, in the intervening night of23.6.2004 and 24.6.2004, Asha alias Sadhna, a girl about 15-16 years of age, was seen by her mother in compromising position with the applicant. On being detected the applicant and Asha both ran away. On search, it was found that Asha committed suicide by jumping before the train. Murg report was lodged by Kotwar Ganesh Prasad and ultimately a case under section 306 and 354 of the IPC was registered on 25.7.2005 against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the evidence of the witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the material on record, prima facie no offence under section 306 and 354 is made out, as such, the impugned order of framing charge against the applicant is illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. Perusal of the statement of Kanta Bai, mother of the deceased, reveals that the deceased was about 15-16 years of age. Applicant used to talk to her frequently. In the night of 23.6.2004 and 24.6.2004, when her husband had gone to village and there was no light in the house, her daughter (deceased) was not found on her bed. After some time when there was light, she was seen by her in a compromising position with the applicant, near the bath room. On being detected both of them ran away. Her younger daughter Pooja informed her that the applicant had taken away the deceased from her bed. On search, after about one and a half hour her husband inforn1ed that Asha had died as she was run over by a train. According to her, she believed that her daughter was intimidated or allured away by the applicant and that she committed suicide due to humiliation, shame and feeling guilty on her being seen with the applicant in such an awkward situation. 5. Similar statements were given by Ku. Pooja (sister), Atma Puri (father) and Jitendra Puri (brother) of the deceased. According to her, she believed that her daughter was intimidated or allured away by the applicant and that she committed suicide due to humiliation, shame and feeling guilty on her being seen with the applicant in such an awkward situation. 5. Similar statements were given by Ku. Pooja (sister), Atma Puri (father) and Jitendra Puri (brother) of the deceased. Atma Puri said that he was informed by his wife that the applicant used to harass the deceased, but she did not say anything out of fear though she had asked her mother not to let the applicant come to their house. He also believed that the deceased had gone with the applicant under the fear and had committed suicide on being seen with the applicant by his wife. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that under the circumstances of the case it is apparent that the deceased felt compelled to commit suicide due to the conduct of the applicant, as such, prima fade charge for the offence under section 306 and 354 of the IPC was clearly made out. 7. For bringing the case in the ambit of section 306 of the IPC, it is essential that a person abets the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 of the IPC which defines abetment, is reproduced below :- "107. Abetment of a thing -- 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." 8. Thus, the essential ingredient to constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide is that the accused instigates any person to commit suicide or in any manner aids, prompts or compels the deceased to commit suicide. The necessary requirement is the intention of the accused that the deceased should commit suicide. Simply because the deceased committed suicide feeling humiliated and ashamed of her conduct it would not bring the case within the ambit of section 306 of the IPC. The necessary requirement is the intention of the accused that the deceased should commit suicide. Simply because the deceased committed suicide feeling humiliated and ashamed of her conduct it would not bring the case within the ambit of section 306 of the IPC. Assuming that the deceased committed suicide because she was taken away by the applicant and was seen by her mother in objectionable situation, it cannot be said that the applicant intended or even knew that she would commit suicide. In view of the above factual and legal situation, prima ficie there is no material to indicate that the applicant had in any manner abeted the deceased to commit suicide. 9. So far as the charge for the offence under section 354 of the IPC is concerned, from the evidence of Ku. Pooja it appears that the applicant had come to her house in the night and asked the deceased not to shout and had taken away catching hold of her. Kanta Bai has also said that Pooja had told her that the applicant had taken away Asha from her bed and then she had seen both of them in a compromising position. In view of the above evidence and the young age of the deceased, at this stage, it cannot be held that the applicant had not outraged the modesty of the deceased. Deceased was a young girl of about 15-16 years of age at the time of occurrence but the applicant was a grown up man, it cannot be said that the applicant was not knowing that by his conduct he would outrage her modesty. Section 354 of the IPC provides: "354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty. -- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 10. In view of the above I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material on record for framing the charge under section 354 of the IPC against the applicant. 11. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. Charge for the offence under section 306 of the IPC is quashed. 10. In view of the above I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material on record for framing the charge under section 354 of the IPC against the applicant. 11. Accordingly, this revision is partly allowed. Charge for the offence under section 306 of the IPC is quashed. However, the order framing charge for the offence under section 354 of the IPC is affirmed. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge is directed to proceed according to law.