Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1106 (MP)

Anil Gupta v. State of M. P.

2013-09-12

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2013
JUDGMENT : A.K. Shrivastava, J This revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the order dated 1.5.2013 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No.115/2012 framing charge against the applicant under Section 306 and 498-A IPC. 2. The applicant was married to Reena Gupta (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) on 23.6.2010. It is said that in the marriage Rs.2,01,000/- cash and Rs.50,000/- cash to purchase the motorcycle, television set, watch, gold ring, utensils and clothes were given to the applicant. On 24.6.2010 the Vida ceremony took place and after staying for two months with the applicant the deceased came to her nuptial home. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 9.9.2010 the applicant sent SMS on the mobile phone No.09835018851 to the deceased requesting her to live alone. After reading the SMS the deceased hanged herself in her nuptial home. Upon investigation it was found by the investigating agency that the applicant has committed an offence under Section498-A and 306 IPC. Eventually, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Trial Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session, which framed the charges punishable under Section 498-Aand 306 IPC by the impugned order. 3. In this manner, this revision application has been filed by the accused-applicant. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the applicant/accused is that there is nothing in the charge-sheet in order to set in motion the ingredients of Section 107 IPC and if that is the position the charge under Section 306 IPC which has been framed by learned Trial Court should be quashed. In support of his contention learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court, Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1998 . By inviting my attention to the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses it has been submitted that nowhere it has come in the statement of any of the witnesses that the applicant subjected the deceased to cruelty so as to drive her to commit suicide or dealt any grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) to the deceased. Learned counsel further submits that there is no iota of material in the entire charge-sheet that the applicant harassed the deceased with a view to coercing her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security. Thus, the framing of charge under Section 498-A IPC is also to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Shri Pandey, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that there is material in the charge-sheet in order to frame necessary charges under Section 306 and 498-A IPC and therefore, this revision application be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this revision deserves to be allowed. 7. On bare perusal of the FIR this Court finds that the SMS which was sent by the applicant to the deceased on her mobile phone, reads thus:- “I am stranger for your family & I have no relationship to u all. I want peace for live hood. I requested. don't vex me. please live me alone”. I have kept the SMS sent to the deceased in juxtaposition to Section 107 of IPC and reading both conjointly I do not find that SMS comes within the ambit and scope of Section 107 IPC. I may further add that only this much has been stated in the SMS by the husband/applicant that he wants to live alone. The incident had taken place on 14.9.2010 and after 27 days the statement of Kedar Prasad Gupta father of the girl was recorded. After going through it, only this much is gathered that when he was in his shop, at that juncture, he received information that his daughter has strangulated herself. It was informed to him that some SMS was received by the deceased. True, this witness has stated that he has given gold ring, cash amount Rs.2,01,000/- and Rs.50,000/- cash to purchase a motorcycle and some other articles to applicant but nowhere in his entire statement he has so stated that any demand of dowry was ever made by the applicant. Similar type of statement is of other witnesses also who are family members of the deceased. Similar type of statement is of other witnesses also who are family members of the deceased. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) has categorically held that even if the accused has said to the deceased “to go and die”, that itself would not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation' as envisaged under Section 107 IPC. The Supreme Court further held that the word 'investigation' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is necessary. Thus, I am of the view that the SMS sent by the applicant would not come within the scope of the word 'instigation' as used in Section 107 IPC. That apart, learned Public Prosecutor could not point out from the statement recorded by police of the witnesses that the applicant had done some act so as to instigate the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, according to me, the decision of Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. 8. In the present case it has come in the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the father of the deceased that at the time of cremation it was told to him that the applicant was not inclined to marry with his daughter. But, in absence of any material in the charge sheet that for the said reason the applicant was instigating the deceased to commit suicide, according to me, it cannot be said that the applicant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. I may further add that even if it was disclosed by the applicant to the deceased that he is not happy with the marriage, at the most it can be said to be a cause to commit suicide but nevertheless it can be said to be abetment to commit suicide. 9. In the present case, there is absolutely no evidence that the applicant had quarreled with the deceased when she was in her nuptial home. To me, even if some quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife which results into suicide, it cannot be said that the appellant had abetted the wife to commit suicide. In this regard the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Assoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 CRI.L.J.658 may be seen. To me, even if some quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife which results into suicide, it cannot be said that the appellant had abetted the wife to commit suicide. In this regard the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Assoo v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 CRI.L.J.658 may be seen. Hence, I am of the view that the learned Trial Court erred in law in framing the charge under Section 107 IPC. The same is hereby quashed. 10. Coming to charge under Section 498-A IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor has simply argued that it has come in the testimony of the father of the deceased as well as other witnesses that cash amount, television set, gold ring etc. were given to the applicant during the marriage. But, there is no iota of any evidence that the applicant ever demanded any dowry from the parents of the deceased or from any other member of the family or even from the deceased and on failure to fulfill the demand she was harassed in terms of Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, I am of the view that framing of charge under Section 498-A IPC is not at all warranted and same is accordingly quashed. 11. Resultantly, this revision application succeeds and is hereby allowed and the applicant is discharged from all the charges.