Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1415 (MP)

HYDER KHAN v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-12-13

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. This revision is directed by the applicants-accused under sections 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 11-10-2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T. No. 06/2011 framing charge against each of them for the offence of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 22-9-2010 on receiving the information in writing from Dr. D. K. Patidar posted at Nehru Chikitshalaya, Burhanpur regarding unnatural death of one Praveen Kunbi, son of Shri Gopal Kunbi, aged 23 years an inquest report bearing No. 29/2010 was registered at Police Station Lalbagh, Burhanpur. In the course of its enquiry after preparing the Panchanama of the dead body, the autopsy of the same was carried out. In further enquiry on interrogation of witnesses Chameli Bai Kunbi, Gopal Kunbi, Churaman Kunbi, Rupali Kunbi, Jitendra Mahajan, Dinesh Dhande; Yogesh Mahajan, Prakash Mahajan and Rahul Mahajan, it was revealed that the deceased Praveen in his lifetime was under fear and extortion of the applicants as they were demanding Rs. 6000/- from him with criminal intimidation that on non-giving such sum, they will implicate the deceased in the murder case of Shabnam d/o Ikbal Khan. Accordingly the applicants harassed and abeted Praveen Kunbi for committing the suicide. Pursuant to such extortion and instigation said Praveen by consuming poisonous substance committed suicide, on which crime No. 278/10 was registered against the applicants at the same Police Station for the offence of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code and after holding investigation on establishing the case of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants, they were charge-sheeted for the same. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge-sheet a charge of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code was framed against both the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order have come to this Court with this revision. 4. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge-sheet a charge of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code was framed against both the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being dissatisfied with such order have come to this Court with this revision. 4. Shri M. K. Tripathi, learned appearing counsel of the applicants after taking me through the copy of the charge-sheet along with the impugned order and the charge framed against the applicants argued that on taking into consideration the face value of the evidence placed by the investigating agency in the charge-sheet as accepted in its entirety, the ingredients of the offence of section 306 of Indian Penal Code along with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against any of the applicants. In continuation he argued that for the sake of arguments, if it is deemed that the applicants demanded Rs. 6000/- from Praveen with criminal intimidation that on non-giving such sum to them, they will involve him in the alleged murder case of Shabnam otherwise, he may go and die even then the applicants could not be prosecuted under section 306 of Indian Penal Code treating them to be offender to instigate the deceased for committing the suicide. As such after giving the alleged extortion and intimidation by the applicants, the deceased had a remedy to approach the public authority/ Police Authority to get prosecuted the applicants for their offending act and if instead to adopt such way without approaching to the public authority, if Praveen by consuming poisonous substance has committed suicide, then the same could not be treated to be the abetement or instigation to the deceased on the part of the applicants. According to him the evidence collected by the investigating agency does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of a thing defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore the applicants could not be prosecuted for offence of section 306 of Indian Penal Code and prayed for discharging the applicants by admitting and allowing this revision. 5. 5. Having heard the applicant's counsel at length on admission, keeping in view the arguments advanced by him, I have carefully gone through the copy of the charge-sheet along with the Police Report filed under section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code so also the impugned order and the framed charges against the applicants. 6. True it is that after consuming the poisonous substance Praveen Kunbi was taken to hospital where he being unconscious was not in a position to give statement or to record the dying declaration and during treatment in the hospital due to complication of alleged poisonous substance he died, on which an information in writing was sent by the concerning Doctor to the Police Outpost of such hospital from where it was received at the Police Station, Lalbagh, Burhanpur, on which a merge intimation was registered and in its enquiry after preparing dead body Panchanama, the post-mortem of the same was carried out, according to which the cause of death of Praveen Kunbe was found asphyxia, most probably as a result of poison. However, viscera was preserved and the same was sent for chemical examination. As per charge-sheet the report of forensic laboratory in this regard is still awaited, as the same is not placed on the record. 7. Besides the aforesaid, in the enquiry of the inquest report the interrogatory statements of as many as nine witnesses named in the FIR were recorded, on which it was established that in the lifetime of the deceased, he was subjected to alleged demand of Rs. 6000/- by the applicant and to fulfil such demand, he was under fear and extortion of the applicants who asked him either to pay them such sum or may go and die, otherwise they will implicate him in the murder case of the said Shabnam. Pursuant to that abetment and instigation given by the applicants, the deceased proceeded to commit suicide and committed the same, on which the impugned FIR was registered against the applicants for the offence of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code. After registration of the offence again interrogatory statements of as many as 13 witnesses were recorded. Pursuant to that abetment and instigation given by the applicants, the deceased proceeded to commit suicide and committed the same, on which the impugned FIR was registered against the applicants for the offence of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code. After registration of the offence again interrogatory statements of as many as 13 witnesses were recorded. On going through the copies of the interrogatory statements of such witnesses placed on the record, it is apparent from the interrogatory statements of Churaman Kunbi, Gopal Kunbi, Pramod, Rahul, Gajendra, Pramod, Yogesh, jitendra, Prakash, S/o Kaddu Mahajan, Dinesh, Smt. Rupali, wd/o Praveen that the deceased Praveen was subjected to harassment, abetment and instigation of the applicants' act of extortion whereby under criminal threat, they were demanding Rs.6,000/- from the deceased saying if such amount is not paid to them, then they would involve the deceased in the alleged murder case of Shabnam, otherwise he may die and due to such fear and extortion given by the applicants, the deceased-Praveen proceeded to commit suicide and by consuming the alleged poisonous substance committed the same. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, for the sake of arguments for a moment, if it is deemed that in the lifetime of the said deceased-Praveen the aforesaid fear under the activities of extortion had not been given by the applicants to him, then there was no occasion for the deceased to proceed and commit the suicide. So in such circumstances, one thing is certain that the applicants by carrying out the extortion activities and creating fear on the deceased to implicate in the murder case of Shabnam created such situation, in which the deceased was abeted and instigated to commit suicide and committed the same. 9. Apart the above, there is sufficient evidence in the charge-sheet showing that both the applicants had agreed in the criminal conspiracy to create aforesaid fear on the deceased and thereby in furtherance of their common intention, with abovementioned extortion abeted to the deceased for committing suicide. In such premises, also the case of the prosecution against the applicants is squarely covered with the definition of "abetment of thing" defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code and in such premises, the impugned charge of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code has been rightly framed by the trial Court. 10. In such premises, also the case of the prosecution against the applicants is squarely covered with the definition of "abetment of thing" defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code and in such premises, the impugned charge of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code has been rightly framed by the trial Court. 10. As ready reference, I would like to reproduce the concerning part of aforesaid both the sections. The same are read as under :- "107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other 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." "306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 11. In view of the aforesaid provision, on examining the case, it is apparent that Praveen Kunbi committed suicide because of the instigation given by the applicants to him by creating the fear under the activities of extortion and thereby both the applicants engaged themselves with each other to instigate the deceased-Praveen to commit suicide and pursuant to that he committed suicide. Accordingly such act of the applicants are squarely covered under the first and second ingredients of said section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. In such premises, the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the alleged charge of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion, I have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of law in the order impugned framing charge of section 306/34 of Indian Penal Code against the applicants requiring any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently this revision being devoids of any merits is hereby dismissed.