Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1520 (MP)

Siddhgopal Verma v. Siddhgopal Verma

2014-11-24

G.S.SOLANKI

body2014
JUDGMENT : G.S. Solanki, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This revision has been filed by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 27.8.2014 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Umariya, in S.T. No. 6/2014 by which the charge under Section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant. 3. The facts, in short, giving rise to this revision are that on 18.6.2013 Badri Prasad Burman had committed suicide by hanging himself. It is alleged against the applicant that he, in the capacity of CEO of Janpad Panchayat, Manpur, District Umariya, along with other co-accused persons did not pay the labour charges to Badri Prasad Burman and when he went to take labour charges of Kapildhara scheme, the applicant and co- accused persons refused to pay the aforesaid charges, therefore, Badri Prasad Burman committed suicide. The report was lodged by his brother. 4. After usual investigation, the applicant and other co- accused persons have been charge sheeted before JMFC, who committed the case to Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under section 306 of the IPC against the applicant and other co-accused persons, hence this revision on behalf of the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicant. As per prosecution, there is no prima facie evidence on record against the applicant to show that the applicant had instigated the deceased or due to his acts or illegal omission, Badri Prasad Burman committed suicide, therefore, no prima facie evidence has been collected by the prosecution under Section 107 of the IPC. As per the post mortem report, the deceased had the history of mental illness and he was treated by a Psychologist at Jabalpur, which shows that the applicant might have committed suicide in depressed state of mind, therefore, no case under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the applicant. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR 2010 SC 327 . 6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order passed by the trial Court. 7. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR 2010 SC 327 . 6. Learned counsel for the State has supported the order passed by the trial Court. 7. I have perused the case diary along with the post mortem report of the deceased. It reveals that the applicant was not the person, who was authorized to make payment of the labour charges. No ingredient of Section 107 of the IPC has been found against the applicant. As per the post mortem report, the deceased had history of mental illness and he had obtained treatment from a Psychologist, which shows that at the time of committing suicide, he might be under depressed state of mind. 8. The Apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR 2010 SC 327 observed that the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation. Apex Court further observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. 9. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and in the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge under Section 306 of the IPC against the applicant. 10. Consequently, the revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 27.8.2014, so far as it relates to the applicant, is hereby set aside. The applicant is acquitted to the charge under Section 306 of the IPC. 11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance and necessary action. 12. Certified copy as per rules.