Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1041 (MP)

NEETA SHUKLA v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-09-02

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. The applicants/accused have directed this revision under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short 'the Code') being aggrieved by the order dated 13-6-2011 passed by IVth Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Katni, in Sessions Trial No. 281/10 framing charges against them for the offence under section 306 read with section 107 of Indian Penal Code in alternatively under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on receiving an information from one Mithlesh Shukla, an inquest intimation under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code was registered at Police Station Kuthla District Katni. According to which, the son of the informer namely Manoj Shukla committed suicide by hanging on a fan with the assistance of rope. In it's enquiry, the spot map along with the Panchnama of dead body was prepared during such proceedings two suicidal notes were also seized from the pocket of the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the District Hospital Katni where on carrying out the post-mortem, the cause of death was found to be hanging. According to the aforesaid suicidal note, said Manoj committed suicide because of his wife the applicant No. 1 Neeta Shukla and her brother-in-law the applicant No. 2 Sanju Goutam. As per further averments of the aforesaid suicidal note, the applicant No. 2 Sanju Goutam was used to talk on telephone with the applicant No. 1 saying that he will create the situation for her to get the divorce from him and thereafter, to get registered some case against him they will become one for each other. Accordingly, both the applicants are responsible for his death, on whose instigation he is going to commit suicide. As alleged such suicidal note Annexure-A/5 was written by the deceased Manoj. On the basis of such suicidal note, the offence under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against the applicants and in investigation the interrogatory statements of the persons of parental family and of relatives of the deceased namely; Mithlesh, Smt. Radha, Shivendra Pathak, Awadh Prasad Goutam, Subodh Kumar Goutam, Santosh Kumar Shukla and Shubham Kumar Shukla were recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code in which they also supported aforesaid prosecution story. On sending the aforesaid suicidal notes to State Handwriting Expert, on examining the same with the standard hand writing of the deceased as per such expert report dated 15-4-2011, the same were found to be written in the handwriting of the deceased. On completion of the investigation, the applicants were charge-sheeted for the abovementioned offence under section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, considering the papers of the charge-sheet, the charge of section 306 read with section 107 of Indian Penal Code and in alternative of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code were framed against the applicants. They abjured the same on which, the trial was directed against them. Before proceeding the trial, the applicants have come forward with this revision with a prayer to discharge them from the charges framed. 4. Shri Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants by referring the papers of the charge-sheet said that, even on taking into consideration the face value of the same, prima facie the ingredients of the alleged offence of abatement to the deceased for committing suicide defined under section 306 read with section 107 of Indian Penal Code are not made out against them even for framing the charges. In such premises, the impugned order of the trial Court is not sustainable under the law. In support of argument, he also placed his reliance on the decided cases of the Apex Court in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 1 SCC 750 , in the matter of Sonti Rama Krishna vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and anr, AIR 2009 SC 923 , in the matter of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2010) 8 SCC 628 , in the matter of S. S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, (2010) 12 SCC 190 and also of this Court in the matter of Ajay Patodia vs. State of M.P., 2003(4) MPLJ, 195, in the matter of Ramchandra s/o Jagannath Singh Kushvaha vs. State of M.P., 2009(2) MPLJ 147 and in the matter of Bhagwan Das and others vs. State of M.P., 2010 (3) M.P.H.T. 239 and prayed to discharge the applicants from the alleged offence by admitting and allowing this revision. 5. 5. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Government Advocate by referring the papers of the charge-sheet including the abovementioned suicidal note of the deceased along with the handwriting expert and the interrogatory statements of the witnesses examined from the parental family of the deceased justified the impugned order framing the charges of the aforesaid offence against the applicants. In continuation, by referring the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Dammu Sreenu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4421, she said that considering the factual matrix of the case that one Bhura Nagarjun Rao, the husband of accused No. 2 committed suicide because of illicit relationship between his wife accused No. 2 and the appellant accused No. 1 Dammu Sreenu, the Apex Court held that such facts leads to only one conclusion that it is on account of humiliation and insult due to the behaviour and conduct of accused No. 1 and accused No. 2, the deceased proceeded to commit suicide. Pursuant to it, the conviction and sentence awarded by the subordinate Courts to the concerning appellant section 306 of Indian Penal Code was also affirmed. She further argued that at the stage of framing the charges, the Court has not to examine or decide the matter whether on holding the trial, the same will be culminated in the conviction of the accused or not. If the prima facie circumstances and the ingredients of the alleged offences are found in the charge-sheet against the applicants/accused then, there is no option with the Court except to frame the charges of such offence against the accused like applicants and hold the trial. In such premises also, the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 6. Having heard the counsel after perusing the record along with the aforesaid suicidal note with the expert report and the interrogatory statements of the witnesses, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage for discharging the applicants from the charges framed. 7. 6. Having heard the counsel after perusing the record along with the aforesaid suicidal note with the expert report and the interrogatory statements of the witnesses, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage for discharging the applicants from the charges framed. 7. According to aforesaid suicidal note Annexure-A/5, it is apparent that the deceased committed suicide because of some suspicious relationship between his wife the applicant No.1 and her brother-in-law the applicant No. 2 Sanju Goutam as deceased was used to hear the inter-se telephonic talk between them whereby, the applicant No. 2 was used to say the applicant No. 1 that after getting the divorce by applicant No. 1 from Manoj, the deceased, he will get registered some case against Manoj thereafter, they will become one. Accordingly by suicidal note, the deceased held them to be responsible for his death. For ready reference, I would like to reproduce the entire version of the suicidal note. The same is read as under- 8. In investigation, the aforesaid suicidal note was sent to the State Handwriting expert along with some standard handwriting of the deceased. On examination the same was found to be written in the Handwriting of the deceased Manoj. As stated in the Handwriting expert report dated 15-4-2011, copy of such reports available on the record. Besides this, the prosecution story is further supported by the interrogatory statements of the parents and other witnesses examined from the family of the deceased. Such prima facie evidence at the stage of framing the charges, could not be ignored or discarded only to discharge the applicants. 9. So far as the case laws cited on behalf of the applicants are concerned, the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy (supra) was based on some different circumstances. In such case, the deceased was harassed by the accused/applicants by making allegations against him regarding theft of gold ornaments so the deceased committed suicide. That is not the factual matrix in the present case, therefore, this case law does not help to the applicants. In the matter of Sonti Rama Krishna (supra) as per allegations, the husband was openly insulted by his wife saying that he is ugly looking and impotent on which, the husband committed suicide. That is not the factual matrix in the present case, therefore, this case law does not help to the applicants. In the matter of Sonti Rama Krishna (supra) as per allegations, the husband was openly insulted by his wife saying that he is ugly looking and impotent on which, the husband committed suicide. Such case was not the case of illicit or suspicious relationship of the wife with some other persons, hence, the same being distinguishable on facts, is not helping to the applicants. The case of Madan Mohan Singh (supra) was decided taking into consideration some departmental enmities and the grouses between the applicants/accused and the deceased which is not the situation in the case at hand, therefore, such case law is also not helping to the applicants. The case law of S. S. Chheena (supra) was decided holding that the suicidal note did not even remotely connect applicant for the offence of abetment. While, as per aforesaid discussions, in the present matter the suicidal note of the deceased is very specific and connecting the applicants with the alleged offence whereby, the applicants instigated by their different acts to the deceased for committing suicide hence, this cited case being distinguishable on facts with the present matter, is also not helping to the applicants. 10. The question involved in the present matter taking into consideration the identical matrimonial dispute till some extent between husband wife because of illicit relationship of wife with other person, has been answered by the Apex Court in the matter of Dammu Sreenu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) cited by the State counsel in which it was held as under :- "13. We have carefully examined the aforesaid statement of PW-5 and on perusal of the statement we do not find that any suggestion was made to the said PW-5 that there did not exist an illicit relationship between Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2. Besides, the close relatives of the deceased who were also examined as witnesses had categorically stated in their statements that on coming to know of the fact that Accused No. 1 has taken Accused No. 2 from the house of PW-5 and left her only on 6-1-1996 at her parents' house, the deceased stated before the said inmates of his house that because of the said insult and humiliation he does not like to live. It is also proved that immediately thereafter, in the night intervening 7th and 8th of January, 1996 the deceased committed suicide. The aforesaid fact leads to only one conclusion that it is on account of humiliation and insult due to the behaviour and conduct of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 that he proceeded to commit the suicide" "14. The facts which are disclosed from the evidence on record clearly establish that Accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with Accused No. 2, who is the wife of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that Accused No. 1 was visiting the house of the deceased to meet Accused No. 2 and that he even went to the house of deceased when he came to know that the wife of the deceased was sent with her father for counselling and advise. He loudly stated that he would continue to have relationship with Accused No. 2 and would come to her house so long she does not object to the same. He also took her away from the house of PW-5, her brother and kept her with him for 4 days. Immediately after the said incident the deceased committed the suicide. Therefore, there is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of the suicide committed by the deceased. Besides, there is clear and unambiguous findings of fact of three Courts that the appellant is guilty of the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Such findings do not call for any interference in our hand. This Court also does not generally embark upon re-appreciation of evidence on facts which are found and held against the appellant." 11. The cited case was decided taking into consideration the oral talk and discussion between husband, wife and a third person had a relation with the wife of the deceased while in the case at hand such thing was happened between applicant No. 1 and 2 on telephone and on coming to know such situation Manoj committed suicide. So in such premises the ratio of said case is applicable to the present case. 12. So in such premises the ratio of said case is applicable to the present case. 12. In view of the aforesaid principle of the Apex Court on examining the case at hand, it is apparent from the papers of the charge-sheet as discussed above that the applicants by their behaviour and act of continuing their inter-se relationship and telephonic talk with each other had created the situation in which deceased Manoj felt himself to be humiliated and insulted and by such instigation of the applicants committed suicide. For which sufficient prima facie evidence as per requirement of section 306 read with section 107 of Indian Penal Code, is available in the charge-sheet and the same is to be considered and appreciated on merits by the trial Court only after recording the evidence, therefore, it is held that the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the alleged charge against the applicants. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I have not found any merit in this revision resultantly, the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.