Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 479 (MP)

Laxmi Bai W/O Manoj Haldkar v. State Of M. P.

2009-04-15

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2009
JUDGMENT : Applicant/accused, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18-3-2009 by which charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against her, has filed this revision petition. 2. No exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this revision. Suffice it to state that the deceased namely Smt. Prayaga Bai (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was sister-in-law (Devrani) of the applicant. As per the case of prosecution some altercation was being taken place between deceased and applicant, as a result of which she committed suicide by putting herself beneath the train. The investigating agency after investigation filed a charge-sheet in the competent Court who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order has framed charge punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In this manner the present revision application has been filed by the applicant. 3. The contention of Shri Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant is that even if the case of prosecution is taken to be true in toto, the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be framed. According to learned counsel, merely because of altercation took place between deceased and applicant it would not come under the purview of abetment as envisaged under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, learned trial Court has illegally framed charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Shailender Singh s/o Madho Singh and others vs. State of M. P., 2005(2) MPLJ 224 and Vishnu Prasad vs. State of M. P., 2005(3) MPLJ 23 . 4. On the other hand Shri Choubey, learned counsel for the State argued in support of the order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On going through the entire charge-sheet filed by the prosecution, it is gathered that altercation was being taken place between the deceased and applicant and therefore, deceased committed suicide. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On going through the entire charge-sheet filed by the prosecution, it is gathered that altercation was being taken place between the deceased and applicant and therefore, deceased committed suicide. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken to be true in toto, at the most it can be said that it may be a cause to commit suicide, however, it cannot be said to be abetment to commit suicide as envisaged under section 107 of Indian Penal Code, 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 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." 7. The Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P., AIR 2002 SC 1998 categorically held that even if it is said by the accused to the deceased "to go and die", it would not amount to abetment to commit suicide and no charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code can be framed. Even for the moment it is assumed that applicant harassed deceased, her act cannot be stretched to the extent of section 107 of Indian Penal Code. The decision of Vishnu Prasad (supra) and Shailender Singh (supra) placed reliance by learned counsel for the applicant is applicable in the present case. 8. In result, I am of the view that learned trial Court has erred in framing charges under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. Charge framed under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant is hereby set aside and applicant is discharged from the said offence.