Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 515 (MP)

Hariram v. State of M. P.

2009-04-18

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2009
ORDER 1. Applicant-accused, feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.8.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No. 163/2008 whereby applicant has been charged for an offence u/s. 306 of IPC this revision petition has been filed by him. 2. As per the case of the-prosecution Munnibai (hereinafter referred to as deceased) established illicit relations with the applicant eight years prior to the date of incident (incident occurred on 9.7.2008). The applicant is a married person. It is also the case of the prosecution that applicant got the deceased employed as Aanganwadi Karya Karta and also gave a house to reside at Gubra on rental basis. The applicant was maintaining the deceased and also paying rent of the house. The applicant is a resident of village Nohata where he resides with his family. It is further case of the prosecution that applicant pacified the deceased that she should not come to her village Nohata. However, when the amount of maintenance was not given by the applicant, the deceased went to his village Nohata at late night at 11 hrs and knocked the door of the applicant but, he did not open the same, as a result, she consumed poisonous pills as a result of which she breathed her last on 11.7.2008. 3. An application addressed to Station Officer Incharge dated 11. 7.2008 was submitted by the deceased to the said Station Officer Incharge. 4. After the death of the deceased the case was registered u/s 498, 494, 376 and 306 of IPC: The charge-sheet was also filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge on scrutiny of the charge-sheet did not frame charges punishable u/s. 498, 494 and 376 of the IPC, however, learned Sessions Judge was of the view that charge-u/s. 306 of IPC is required to be framed and accordingly, framed the said charge. In this manner the present revision petition has been filed by the applicant. 5. The contention of Smt. Sandhya Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant is that merely because deceased came to the house of the applicant and knocked the door which was not opened and therefore if she had consumed the poisonous pills then for no stretch of imagination applicant can be charged for an offence u/s. 306 of IPC. 5. The contention of Smt. Sandhya Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant is that merely because deceased came to the house of the applicant and knocked the door which was not opened and therefore if she had consumed the poisonous pills then for no stretch of imagination applicant can be charged for an offence u/s. 306 of IPC. In support of their contention has placed reliance on Vedprakash Tarachand Bhaiji v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 1994 JLJ 758 = 1995 MPLJ 458 ] and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2002 (2) JLJ 275 = AIR 2002SC 1998]. 6. On the other hand Shri Patel, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. On going through the application written by deceased addressing to Station Officer Incharge, it is gathered that in a very neat and nice hand writing the same has been written. The deceased simply signed the said application. On bare perusal of the signature of the deceased, one could infer that she was an illiterate lady. In the entire application it has not been mentioned that the description has been read over to the applicant and after hearing the contents, she signed the documents. On going through this application it is inferred that the application has been written by a person who is well acquainted that how the applications are written and submitted, because it has been addressed to the Station Officer Incharge mentioning the subject of the application, etc. The name of scribe is also not mentioned in this application, apart from this on going through this application it is gathered that when deceased reached at the house 0 the applicant in the late night at 11 hrs., applicant did not open the door of his house, as a result of which, she consumed poisonous pills in front of the house of the applicant. To me, merely, because the applicant did not open the door late at night, it cannot be said that applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. This act of the applicant would not cornel under any of the clause of section 107 of IPC. 9. To me, merely, because the applicant did not open the door late at night, it cannot be said that applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. This act of the applicant would not cornel under any of the clause of section 107 of IPC. 9. The Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) held that merely because the accused of that case told the deceased 'to go and die' is no ground to hold prima-facie that offence u/s. 306 of IPC is made out and quashed the charge framed by learned trial Court which was framed by this Court while dismissing the petition u/s. 482 of CrPC. According to me, the present case is on better footing than that of decision of Supreme Court Sanjay alias San jay Singh Sengar (supra) because in the case of Sanju (supra) it was stated by the accused 'to go and die' but in the present case the deceased consumed poisonous pills merely because the door of the house was not opened by the applicant. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am unable to understand that why trial Court framed charge u/s. 306 of IPC. The said charge is accordingly quashed. The applicant is hereby discharged from the said charge. 11. This revision petition is hereby allowed.