Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 393 (MP)

Ramesh Pal v. State Of M. P.

2010-04-05

AJIT SINGH

body2010
ORDER : This revision is directed against the order dated 9-2-2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 24/2010 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgaon, District Chhatarpur, whereby he has framed a charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant. 2. According to the prosecution case, the applicant deals in the business of selling landed property and had persuaded Roop Singh to sell a portion of his property. Roop Singh is an elderly person having a spinal problem. Roop Singh sold the property at the behest of applicant so that he may utilize money received for medical treatment. Applicant's act of persuading Roop Singh to sell the property was not approved by the family members of Roop Singh. On 8-8-2009 sometime during late afternoon the applicant came to the house of Roop Singh. The family members of Roop Singh thought that applicant has come to again persuade Roop Singh for selling the remaining property. They, therefore, objected the applicant and asked him not to visit their house. This led to an altercation between the applicant and Pushpendra Singh, son of Roop Singh. At that time Saroj Raja, wife of Pushpendra Singh, who was inside her room came out and intervened in favour of her husband. The applicant then abused and beat Saroj Raja who felt insulted and humiliated by his conduct. She suddenly rushed to her room and committed suicide by setting fire on herself. The police recorded the first information report about the incident and after investigation filed a charge sheet against the applicant. Before the trial Court the applicant argued for his discharge but without any success. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has framed a charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against him. 3. The learned counsel for applicant has argued that even on accepting the prosecution case in totality, no offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. The learned Government, on the other hand, relying upon the recent decision of Supreme Court Dammu Sreenu vs. State of A. P., 2009 AIR SCW 4421 has defended the impugned order of framing of charge against the applicant. 4. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M. P. and another, 1995 Supp. The learned Government, on the other hand, relying upon the recent decision of Supreme Court Dammu Sreenu vs. State of A. P., 2009 AIR SCW 4421 has defended the impugned order of framing of charge against the applicant. 4. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M. P. and another, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, the appellant was charged for an offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel, is said to have remarked to the deceased 'to go and die'. The Supreme Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even, prima facie, enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. In Sanjay alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M. P., 2002 AIR SCW 2035, the Supreme Court held that the word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. 5. Saroj Raja might have felt insulted and humiliated because she was abused and beaten up by the applicant in a sudden quarrel and it could be a cause for her committing suicide. But from these allegations it cannot be held that applicant instigated or abetted her to commit suicide within the meaning of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no allegation by the prosecution that applicant had either urged or instigated Saroj Raja to commit suicide. The charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant is, therefore, not made out. 6. In Dammu Sreenu (supra) the accused had illicit relations with the wife of deceased which was an admitted position. The accused had taken the wife of deceased at her instance in the presence of his close relatives and because of this conduct deceased committed suicide. The Supreme Court held that there was proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of appellant and wife of deceased with that of suicide of deceased and up-held the conviction of accused under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court held that there was proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of appellant and wife of deceased with that of suicide of deceased and up-held the conviction of accused under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the present case are, therefore, different from that of Dammu Sreenu. Further, the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court to which reference has been made by me in paragraph 4 have not been referred in Dammu Sreenu which shows that the legal position taken in them has not been departed. Dammu Sreenu should be understood to have been decided on its own facts without laying down any new principle different from the earlier judgments mentioned above. 7. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The applicant is discharged of the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. The revision is allowed.