Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 25 (MP)

Brijmohan v. State of M. P.

2012-01-06

ANIL SHARMA

body2012
ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in S.T.No.123/11 whereby the charges for offence under section 498-A/34 and 306/34 of IPC has been framed against the petitioners. 2. Brief facts in narrow compass are that Rekha Bai W/o Girraj Soni (deceased) committed suicide on 8.8.2010. After Marg enquiry in Marg No.23/10, the FIR has been registered on 20.8.2010 for the offence under sections 498-A and 306/34 of IPC and under section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station Kumbhraj District Guna. After filing of challan and committal of case, learned trial Court has framed the charges for offence punishable under sections 498-A/34 and 306/34 of IPC against the petitioners and husband of deceased Girraj Soni. 3. Petitioners have challenged the order of framing of charges against them by filing the present petition on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in the present case by the parental relatives of the deceased. There is no evidence of local witnesses that the deceased was harassed by the petitioners on the date of incident or soon before committal of suicide there was an act of petitioners which can be taken as abetment for committing suicide or harassment to the deceased for demand of dowry. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew attention of this Court towards the statement of son of the deceased, namely, Ayush Soni aged about 7 years recorded under section 161 of CrPC who has stated that the deceased had served the food to him and his sister and thereafter deceased had taken food with her husband. After taking lunch he, his father and sister came down and his father went to his shop. After some time, his uncle Vishnu Soni prepared juice and sent him to serve the juice to his mother and when he reached to the bedroom of his mother at first flour he found that his mother was hanging. He immediately came down and informed his father, uncle and other members of family. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if there had been any dispute or any cruel behaviour with the deceased on the date of incident her son must have narrated the same at the time recording of his statement. 6. He immediately came down and informed his father, uncle and other members of family. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if there had been any dispute or any cruel behaviour with the deceased on the date of incident her son must have narrated the same at the time recording of his statement. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State submitted that the statements of Ram gopal father of deceased, Omprkash -brother of deceased. Chhoti Bai mother of deceased and Bhawna Bai - Anti of deceased reveal that the deceased was harassed for dowry and some amount was paid by them to the husband of the deceased but these statements have been recorded after much time of registration of FIR. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the statements of parental relatives of the deceased are result of after thought as they have never reported the matter to police or any other relatives before incident of suicide. If the deceased has been harassed by the husband and his family members, the neighbourers should have retified the same but the neighbourers have not been examined during investigation. 8. Petitioners have filed the affidavits of some of the neighbourers, namely, Ramesh Chand S/o Gattulal, Ramesh S/o Ramlal, Shrinath, Kewal Chand and Ajay Kumar who have stated on oath that the deceased was living happily with her husband and other family members and paternal relatives of the deceased have given threat on 8.8.2010 to implicate the family members of husband of deceased through police. 9. Apart from this, the statement of son of deceased Ayush Soni recorded under section 161 of CrPC is of much importance because he is child witness of 7 years and he has narrated all the events of the day of incident which includes preparation of food, serving of food by deceased to her children and then taking of lunch by the deceased with her husband which suggests that on the date of incident no quarrel took place between the husband and deceased. His statement further shows that the deceased was living separately in the house along with her husband on first flour of the house which has been confirmed by the affidavit of Shrinath who has stated that the deceased was living separately with her husband for past 3 years from other family members of the husband. 10. His statement further shows that the deceased was living separately in the house along with her husband on first flour of the house which has been confirmed by the affidavit of Shrinath who has stated that the deceased was living separately with her husband for past 3 years from other family members of the husband. 10. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Sunita and Smt. Sheela have been admitted to anticipatory bail on the ground of living separately from the deceased. Petitioners have also filed photocopy of Family Card of Brijmohan Soni which shows number of his family members, namely, Brijmohan, Ratan Bai and Geeta Bai. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to show abetment for committing suicide against the accused. In order to strengthen his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Mangleshwar Singh (Dr.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) (2) MPLJ 44) in which it has been held that for the offence under section 306 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish abetment to commit suicide. If there is no material to frame the charge under section 306 of IPC, the order of framing of charge under section 306 of IPC is liable to be quashed by High Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that if there is no evidence of quarrel or abuse or maltreatment and there is no evidence to show that the harassment and maltreatment was with a view to instigate the deceased to commmit suicide, such harassment or maltreatment is not sufficient to drive a woman to take extreme step of committing suicide, therefore, the petitioners have been acquitted from the charge under section 306 of IPC {2006 (1) MPJR 141} . 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the decision of this. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance on the decision of this. Court in the matter of Laxmi Narayan @ Pappu v. State of M.P 2009 (1) JLJ 291 = 2009 (1) MPJR 65 in which it has been held that in a case of death of wife within 7 years of her marriage if there is no evidence of commission of cruelty as defined in section 498-A, no inference can be drawn against the appellant for convicting him under section 306 of IPC. 14. From the statement of son of deceased Ayush Soni. it is clear that on the date of incident there was no quarrel or misbehaviour with the deceased as she in a routine way prepared the food, served it to her children and took lunch with her husband, therefore, there is no evidence suggesting abetment of suicide by the petitioners who are family members of the husband of deceased living separately. Further the allegation regarding demand of dowry and harassment against the petitioners is only after death of deceased that too after a period of at least 3 years when the deceased was living separately from the petitioners-family members, therefore, there is no material on record for framing the charge under section 306/34 of IPC against the petitioners. Further there is no evidence regarding harassment by the petitioners for at least 3 years immediately before committing suicide by the deceased, therefore, the charge for offence under section 498-A of IPC is also not made out against the petitioners as the deceased was living separately from the family members-petitioners with her husband and children and by no stretch of imagination, the presumption, if any, can be drawn against the husband of the deceased and other family members of the husband of deceased who were living separately. 15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. after marshalling the evidence available on record and looking to the legal position stated in aforementioned paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the revision petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be and is allowed and the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda District Guna whereby the charges for offence under sections 498A134 and 306/34 of IPC against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Petitioners are discharged from the aforesaid charges. Rishikesh Bohre for petitioners; B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.