Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 17 (MP)

Bankelal Soni v. Bankelal Soni v. State of M. P.

2012-01-04

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2012
ORDER 1. The applicants-accused have filed this revision under section 397/401 of the CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singrauli in S.T. No.52/11 framing the charge against each of them for the offence of sections 306 and 306/34 of the IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 12.9.2010 at about 1:50 O’clock in the night at the instance of one Kanhaiyalal Soni a marg intimation regarding unnatural death of Asha Devi Soni was registered at P.S. Waidhan district Singrauli contending that yesterday on 11.9.2010 at about 11 O’clock in the morning, Smt. Asha Devi Soni w/o Shyam Babu Soni, the daugther-in-law of his elder brother Late Munnilal Soni, after bolting the door of the room from inside and pouring kerosene, set fire on herself. On coming to know about such incident, Vishnu Soni s/o Pyarelal Soni, Dipak s/o Munnilal and Upendra Soni, the servant of the shop, opened the door where said Asha Devi, after sustaining the burn injuries, was lying on the floor. Immediately thereafter she was taken to the Nehru Hospital for treatment where her dying declaration was recorded and after providing initial treatment, looking to the nature of the injuries, she was referred for further treatment to Banaras. On the way, she died, on which, her dead body was brought back and kept in the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Waidhan. She died because of the burn injuries. Why she committed such act, he does not know anything about it. In the course of its inquiry, after preparing the Panchnama of the dead body, the post-mortem was carried out. Besides the dying declaration of the deceased the interrogatory statements of her husband Shyam Babu and her daughter Ku. Jyoti were recorded, on which, it was revealed that after partition between said Shyambabu and other members of the family, they were residing separately in the same house but in separate rooms. In regular course the deceased was subjected to harassment and torture by her elder brother-in-law Shivbabu, sister-in-law Sunita Soni, brother-in-law Banke Soni, sister-in-law Anita Soni and nephew Amit Soni, and on the aforesaid date of incident 11.9.2010 at about 9 O’clock, deceased was subjected to abuse and quarrel by said Anita Soni, Banke Soni, Shivbabu Soni and Amit Soni. In regular course the deceased was subjected to harassment and torture by her elder brother-in-law Shivbabu, sister-in-law Sunita Soni, brother-in-law Banke Soni, sister-in-law Anita Soni and nephew Amit Soni, and on the aforesaid date of incident 11.9.2010 at about 9 O’clock, deceased was subjected to abuse and quarrel by said Anita Soni, Banke Soni, Shivbabu Soni and Amit Soni. Due to such harassment and torture of the applicants, the deceased was abetted and instigated to commit suicide and, pursuant to that by pouring kerosene and setting fire on herself, sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same, on which, Crime No.62/10 was registered against the applicants on dated 16.9.2010 against the applicants for the offence under section 306/34 of the IPC. After making interrogation of the witnesses and preparing the requisite papers, on completion of the investigation, prima facie it was revealed that the deceased committed suicide due to abetment given by the applicants in furtherance of their common intention. Consequently they were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge-sheet the charges of sections 306 and 306/34 of the IPC was framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being aggrieved by such order, framing the charges, they have come to this Court with this revision. 4. Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants after taking me through the papers of the charge-sheet along with the impugned order and the charges framed argued that taking into consideration the face value of the entire charge-sheet including the interrogatory statements of the witnesses as accepted in its entirety, the ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 of the IPC or the ingredients defined under section 107 of the IPC are not made out against any of the applicants but contrary to the evidence collected by the investigating agency, mere on imagination and assumption, the aforesaid charge has been framed against the applicants under wrong premises. In continuation, he said that after partition of the family and division of the property, the applicants and the family branch of the deceased were residing separately in some part (rooms) of the same premises, given to the concerning member and branch of the family. In continuation, he said that after partition of the family and division of the property, the applicants and the family branch of the deceased were residing separately in some part (rooms) of the same premises, given to the concerning member and branch of the family. So, there was no any inter se relations between the applicants and the deceased family in regular course of the life and, in such premises, there was no occasion to give any harassment, torture, instigation or any abetment to the deceased by the applicants, on which it could be assumed that due to any such act of the applicants, the deceased committed suicide. He further argued that due to inimical relations between different branch of the family, subsequent to committing suicide by Asha Devi, the applicants have been implicated on the false pretext. With these submissions, he said that the impugned charge framed by the trial Court is not sustainable under the law and in such premises prayed to set aside the impugned order and discharge the applicants by allowing this revision. 5. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charge of the aforesaid offence of section 306 of the IPC was framed against the applicants and other co-accused. They abjured the guilt and thereafter the applicants have come to this Court with this revision. 6. On the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, by supporting the impugned order and the framed charges, learned State counsel Shri Yogesh Dhande said that there is sufficient evidence in the charge-sheet collected by the investigating agency to frame the alleged charge against the applicants and, in such premises, the above mentioned charges were framed in consonance with the evidence available in the charge-sheet. The same does not require any interference at this stage. In continuation, he said that at the stage of framing the charge, the Court has not to express the opinion whether on holding the trial the case would be culminated in conviction or not. If prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 read with section 107 of the IPC are made out then there was no option with the trial Court except to frame the charge of such section against the applicants and, in such premises, the trial Court has not committed any error and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 7. 7. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, after perusing the copy of the charge-sheet placed on the record along with the impugned order and also the case law cited on behalf of the applicants, I am of the considered view that in the available circumstances the trial Court has not committed any error in framing the impugned charges against the applicants. 8. True it is that as per available evidence in the charge-sheet, before happening the alleged incident, the partition in respect of the property had taken place between the different branch of the family including the branch of Shyambabu Soni, the husband of the deceased and they were residing in the separate part/premises of the same house allotted to the concerning branch in the aforesaid partition. It is apparent from the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Asha Soni recorded by B.L. Bihari, the Naib Tehsildar Singrauli on dated 1.11.2010, that she was instigated and proceeded to commit suicide because of beating given by the applicants. In such dying declaration, she categorically stated that the family members were used to abet her, the elders abuse her while the brother-in-law used to beat her, on which, by pouring kerosene, she set fire on herself. Even on recording her statement by the police officials before her death on dated 11.9.2010, in presence of the witnesses Amit Singh, Santosh Soni and Manju Devi, she categorically stated that all her in-laws, used to harass her except her husband.She further stated that although her mother-in-law Kamla Soni did not harass her but was always taking the side of other members of the in-laws family. My brothers-in-law Banke and Shivbabu and sisters-in-laws Anita and Sunita have tortured me and given harassment. My uncle-in-law Jaiprakash was also giving harassment, on which, by pouring kerosene I set fire on me. It is also stated that today in the morning said Anita and Banke came to beat her while she was abused by Shivbabu and Anita. Due to such harassment and torture I set the alleged fire. Besides the aforesaid dying declaration, from the interrogatory statements of Ku. It is also stated that today in the morning said Anita and Banke came to beat her while she was abused by Shivbabu and Anita. Due to such harassment and torture I set the alleged fire. Besides the aforesaid dying declaration, from the interrogatory statements of Ku. Jyoti Soni the dauther of the deceased, Shyambabu Soni husband of the deceased, Smt. Shakuntala mother of the deceased, Tarachand Kariwal the neighbour and independent witness, Smt. Kamla Devi the mother-in-law of the deceased and Abdul Kalam recorded under section 161 of CrPC, it is apparent that in regular course of the life, deceased Asha Devi was subjected to harassment and torture of the applicants and on the date of the incident also on account of dispute regarding some pet dog of the deceased family, some dispute took place between applicant Anita and deceased and due to that the other applicants also came to such place of incident and abused the deceased and also tried to beat her. Due to such harassment and torture from the elders and other members of the family, deceased Asha Devi was abetted and proceeded to commit suicide and pursuant to that after bolting the door of the room from inside, after pouring the kerosene, set fire on herself and received burn injuries. Although, immediately thereafter she was taken to the hospital but after getting her dying declaration recorded by the Tehsildar and police authorities, she succumbed to such burn injuries. On going through the aforesaid all the interrogatory statements, prima facie it is revealed that the deceased was subjected to harassment and torture by the act of the applicants in regular course of the life and soon before the incident, on account of some small dispute between the applicant Anita and the deceased, the all applicants gathered at the place of the incident and not only abused but also given her beating and due to such instigation, she was abetted and proceeded to commit the alleged act of suicide and commit the same. 9. True it is in order to frame the charge of abetment to commit suicide defined under section 306 of the IPC, the ingredients of abetment defined under section 107 of the IPC prima facie should be made out. 9. True it is in order to frame the charge of abetment to commit suicide defined under section 306 of the IPC, the ingredients of abetment defined under section 107 of the IPC prima facie should be made out. It is settled proposition that when ever the word “abetment” stated in section 306 IPC requires any interpretation then in this regard section 107 of the IPC is always taken into consideration which defines “abetment of things”. The same reads as under : “The ingredients are; A person abets the doing of a thing, who (a) instigates any person to do that thing or, (b) Engages with one or more 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 (c) intentionally criminal aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thing.” 10. In view of the aforesaid, on examining the case at hand then in the above mentioned factual matrix if before happening of the alleged incident if the deceased was not subjected to any abuse, quarrel, beating, harassment or torture by the applicant or any of them then certainly she could not have proceeded to commit the suicide. So, one thing is certain that due to alleged acts committed by the applicants in furtherance of their common intention with the deceased, she was proceeded to commit suicide. If such thing was not happened then she could not have gone to commit suicide. So, due to the alleged harassment, beating, abuse and torture of the applicants, the deceased was instigated and abetted to commit suicide and pursuant to that the alleged incident was happened. So, in such premises, the impugned case is squarely covered by first part of section 107 of the IPC and, in such premises, it is held that prima facie for framing the charge of sections 306, 306/34 of IPC are made out against the applicants and in such premises, the trial Court has not committed any error in framing such charge against the applicants. 11. Although on behalf of the applicants in support of their case the reliance was placed on some decisions of the apex Court as well as of this Court. The same are taken up for consideration one by one. 11. Although on behalf of the applicants in support of their case the reliance was placed on some decisions of the apex Court as well as of this Court. The same are taken up for consideration one by one. The case of apex Court in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. [ 2002(2) JLJ 275 = (2002)5 SCC 371 ], was decided taking into consideration some different scenario in which there was some strain relations between the deceased and his wife who was staying with the appellant and when the deceased went to the place of the appellant to bring back his wife, then there some quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased who came back alone. In such quarrel the deceased was said by the appellant to go and die and on that basis the deceased committed suicide. That is not the situation here in the case at hand. As per aforesaid factual matrix the deceased Asha Devi was subjected to harassment, abuse and beating in the regular course and soon before the incident she was subjected to harassment and torture by the applicants. So, the cited case being distinguishable on facts is not helping to the applicant. 12. The another case law of the apex Court in the matter of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh [2001(2) BLJ 113= (2001)9 SCC 618 ], is also based on the factual matrix of some matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. So, the principle laid down in such case being distinguishable on facts of the case at hand, is not helping to the applicant. So far the principle laid down by the apex Court in this case is concerned, this Court did not have any dispute. 13. The case law in the matter of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat [ (2010)8 SCC 628 ], was decided taking into consideration the relationship of the master and servant because the concerning employee at grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of such grudge even on honestly feeling that he was wrong. So, considering such situation and on different facts and circumstances, the case of the concerning appellant was quashed which is not the situation here in the case at hand. As per aforesaid factual matrix due to regular harassment and torture of the applicants, deceased Asha Devi committed suicide. So, considering such situation and on different facts and circumstances, the case of the concerning appellant was quashed which is not the situation here in the case at hand. As per aforesaid factual matrix due to regular harassment and torture of the applicants, deceased Asha Devi committed suicide. The stated case being distinguishable is not helping to the applicants. 14. The case lalw in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [ (2010)1 SCC 750 ], was decided by the apex Court taking into consideration that some allegations of theft was alleged against the servant on which such servant committed suicide and considering that scenario the concerning appellant was acquitted in the case. So, firstly being distinguishable on facts such case is not helping to the applicants and secondly such case was decided after recording the evidence and not at the stage of framing the charge. Hence, on this ground also this case law is not helping to the applicants. 15. The case law in the matter of Ajay Patodia [ 2003(II) MPWN 153 = 2003(4) MPLJ 195 ], Vishnu Prasad v. State of M.P. [ 2005(II) MPWN 112 = 2005(3) MPLJ 23 ], and Mangleshwar Singh v. State of M.P. [ 2003(2) MPLJ 44 ], being distinguishable on facts with the available factual scenario in the case at hand are also not helping to the applicants. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. .............