Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 342 (CHH)

Ram Prasad alias Ramu v. State of Chattisgarh

2014-09-10

SANJAY K.AGARWAL

body2014
ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 18.02.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, framing charge against the, present applicant Ram Prasad for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC). 2. The case of prosecution is that applicant Ram Prasad had illicit relation with deceased Sukhmati Bai and by promising her to marry the applicant had sexual intercourse with her and thereby she became pregnant and carrying pregnancy of three months at the time of suicide. It is further case of the prosecution that applicant Ram Prasad refused to marry her by which deceased Sukhmati felt humiliated and insulted and out of frustration, on 28.09.2004 at about 11 p.m. deceased Sukhmati Bai consumed the poisonous substance and thereafter died. The matter was reported to the police station on 29.09.2004. Merg intimation No. 35/04 was registered and FIR was also registered and after recording statement of witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P.C. charge-sheet for commission of offence under Section 306, IPC was filed against the present applicant. Learned Sessions Judge overruled the objection raised by the applicant and framed charges for the said offence against him. 3. Shri Shrawan Kumar Chandel, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that taking the FIR and documents on record in its face value, no offence under Section 306, IPC is made out against the present applicant and as such, learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely unjustified in framing charges under Section 306, IPC. 4. On the other hand, Shri P.K. Bhaduri and Shri Arvind Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that there is proximity and nexus between conduct and behaviour of applicant with that of suicide committed by Sukhmati Bai. They further submit that sufficient material is available on record for presuming that applicant has committed offences and as such, learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely justified in framing charges for commission of aforesaid offence. 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including records of the case carefully. 6. During the course of investigation, the prosecution has recorded statement of several witnesses including father Tutalu Ram and mother Phulkunwar, they have clearly stated that present applicant had illicit relationship with the deceased Sukhmati Bai and out of their physical relationship, deceased became pregnant. 6. During the course of investigation, the prosecution has recorded statement of several witnesses including father Tutalu Ram and mother Phulkunwar, they have clearly stated that present applicant had illicit relationship with the deceased Sukhmati Bai and out of their physical relationship, deceased became pregnant. Rajkumari i.e. friend of deceased Sukhmati Bai has also stated that deceased suffered humiliation and insult due to her pregnancy and his refusal to marry. Post-mortem report also reveals that deceased was carrying foetus of 2 to 4 months at the time of her death. 7. The Supreme Court in case of Dammu Sreenu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2009 (14) S. 249 : AIR 2009 SC 2532 , while considering the nexus and proximity between the conduct and behaviour of accused with suicide committed, held as under:- "17. It is also proved that immediately thereafter in the night intervening 7th and 8th of January, 1996 the deceased committed suicide. The aforesaid fact leads to only one conclusion that it is on account of humiliation and insult due to the behaviour and conduct of accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 that she proceeded to commit the suicide. 18. The facts which are disclosed from the evidence on record clearly establish that Accused No. 1 had illicit relationship with Accused No. 2 who is the wife of the deceased. It is also not in dispute that Accused No. 1 was visiting the house of the deceased to meet Accused No. 2 and that he even went to the house of deceased when he came to know that the wife of the deceased was sent with her father for counselling and advise. He loudly stated that he would continue to have relationship with Accused No. 2 and would come to her house so long she does not object to the same. He also took her away from the house of PW-5, her brother and kept her with him for 4 days. Immediately after the said incident the deceased committed the suicide. Therefore, there is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of the suicide committed by the deceased." 8. Thus, upon consideration of the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. Immediately after the said incident the deceased committed the suicide. Therefore, there is definitely a proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 2 with that of the suicide committed by the deceased." 8. Thus, upon consideration of the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and other material available on record, it appears that the applicant had illicit relationship with deceased Sukhmati Bai and he promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse by which she became pregnant which is apparent from the post-mortem report and due to refusal to marry she felt humiliated, insulted and out of frustration she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance and as such, there is a close proximity and nexus between conduct and behaviour of applicant with that of suicide committed by Sukhmati Bai and it cannot be held that there is no material for framing charges against the applicant for commission of offence under Section 306, IPC. 9. Accordingly, the revision deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, learned Sessions Judge will decide the matter strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove for the purpose of judging correctness of order framing charge. Petition dismissed.