Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 471 (MP)

Bhagwan Das v. State of M. P.

2010-04-23

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
Judgment ( 1. ) This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the First Information Report dated 6.11.2008 registered against the applicants by Police Station Baghchini, District Morena. ( 2. ) The facts in nutshell are that a case under sections 306,34 of IPC has been registered against the applicants. According to the case of prosecution Bhuribai (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") died in the transit from her house to the Hospital where she was declared dead. An information was sent by the Hospital staff to the concerning Police Station, as a result of which the investigating agency arrived at the Hospital and prepared the panchayatnama of the dead body and sent it for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by the team of three doctors namely Dr. Abhilasha Garg, Dr. Himanshu Sharma and Dr. B.P. Shakya on 20.9.2008. The team of the doctors found following injuries on the person of the deceased :- "(1) Abrasion 5 X 3 cm back of left elbow. (2) Abrasion 12 x 4 cm back of left side chest. (3) Contusion 4 x 4 cm left fore arm, upper 1/3 posterolateral. (4) Contusion 1 x 1 cm middle 1/3 posterior of left fore arm." The doctors further opined that the injuries no. (1) and (2) were postmortem in nature, while injuries no. (3) and (4) were antemortem in nature. ( 3. ) It has been stated at the Bar by learned counsel for applicants that the statements of applicants were recorded by the investigating agency in which they have stated that looking to the serious condition of the deceased she was brought in a Jeep from the Village Baghchini to the District Hospital at Morena, and therefore, during the transit and looking to the general condition of the roads of the State of Madhya Pradesh that too from remote village area to the District Hospital certainly the deceased must have sustained above said two postmortem injuries. ( 4. ) It has been put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants that the team of doctors have specifically opined that the deceased had died due to cardio respiratory failure and the cause of death is not known, and hence, they preserved the viscera and sent it for serological examination. ( 5. ( 4. ) It has been put forth by the learned counsel for the applicants that the team of doctors have specifically opined that the deceased had died due to cardio respiratory failure and the cause of death is not known, and hence, they preserved the viscera and sent it for serological examination. ( 5. ) On going through the report of the serological examiner dated 31.10.2008, this Court finds that the viscera was not containing any poisonous substance. On 10.10.2008 the team of the doctors who conducted the postmortem sent the reply of the queries being made by S.D.O. (P), Jaura that injuries No. (3) and (4) which were found on the left forearm were caused by hard and blunt object and which would also come on account of fall. Further, it has been opined that since the deceased had died on account of cardio respiratory failure it may be due to some disease. Further, it has been contended that the viscera has been sent for analysis and on the basis of the report any further opinion maybe given. Thereafter, on 24.11.2008 in reply to the queries being made by the Station Officer Incharge of Police Station Baghchini, it has been stated by the team of the doctors that injuries No. (3) and (4) were not grievous and the death could not have occurred on account of those injuries and the failure of heart of the deceased occurred by which disease they are unable to state. ( 6. ) The contention of learned counsel for applicants is that in order to implicate the applicants under section 306 of IPC, it is imperative that deceased must have died on account of suicide. However, on going through the postmortem report as well as two replies given by the team of the doctors on the queries being made by the investigating agency, since the suicide has not been opined by the doctors and further because there was no poisonous substance found in the viscera, therefore, the FIR which has been registered under section 306 of IPC against the applicants has to be quashed. ( 7. ) On the other hand Shri Sahani, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is going on, and therefore, the FIR should not be quashed. ( 8. ( 7. ) On the other hand Shri Sahani, learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation is going on, and therefore, the FIR should not be quashed. ( 8. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. ( 9. ) In order to implicate any person for the offence under section 306 of IPC, first of all there should be prima facie material that the suicide has been committed by the deceased. According to me, in order to attract section 306 of IPC there should be material in respect of two essential ingredients they are :- "(i) the commission of suicide by a person; (ii) that the accused abetted the commission thereof." What is abetment it has been explained in section 107 of IPC. On bare reading of sections 306 and 107 of IPC together it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under section 306 of IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. A plain reading of this provision shows that before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person there must be some prima facie material that such person committed suicide. In this context the decision of the Supreme Court Wazir Chand and another v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378 placed reliance by the learned counsel for the applicants is quite relevant. The Single Bench of this Court in Narendra Singh and others v. State ofM.P,, 1999 (1) JLJ 232 has laid down the same preposition of law. Since there is no material to hold that the deceased committed suicide, therefore, the FIR which has been registered under section 306 of IPC cannot be allow to remain in stand and the same is hereby quashed. ( 10. ) Since prima facie there is no material that the deceased had died on account of suicide to drag the applicants for the offence under section 306 of IPC, according to me would be nothing but futile exercise. ( 10. ) Since prima facie there is no material that the deceased had died on account of suicide to drag the applicants for the offence under section 306 of IPC, according to me would be nothing but futile exercise. The Supreme Court in K.L.E. Society and others v. Siddalingesh, (2008) 4 SCC 541 has held that the complaint, it it is found to be nothing but an abuse of the process of law and on bare reading of the complaint reveals that the ingredients of the offences are prima facie not made out, the Court should exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Indeed, section 482 of CrPC has been enacted by the legislature for this purpose only. ( 11. ) For the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. The FIR registered against the applicants under sections 306,34 of IPC at Crime No. 155/08 by Police Station Baghchini is hereby quashed.