Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 45 (CHH)

Arvind v. State of C. G.

2014-02-05

P.SAM KOSHY

body2014
ORDER P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. By way of the instant revision, the applicants have challenged the quashing of the framing of charge under Section 306/34 IPC against the applicants by 6th Additional Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 64/2013 dated 4.4.13. As per the prosecution story, GRP, Bhilai on receiving information has registered Merg No. 26/11 wherein they had found body of the deceased DS. Pilley on the railway track near Raipur at around 2.00 p.m. and FIR was registered by the Inspector GRP Shri Mahesh Sinha on the basis of a suicidal note seized from the pocket of the deceased in which all the applicants have been specifically named. 2. A plain reading of the suicidal note would reflect that one Vinod Tiwari, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Bodla had introduced the family of the applicants to the family of the deceased and a transaction took place for selling the rice mill by the family of the deceased to the applicants for an amount of Rs. 41 lacs. Subsequently there was some dispute in the payment made wherein it is alleged that only half of the amount was paid to the family of the deceased and the balance amount of 20 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration which however was not paid and this had put the family of the deceased in great financial crisis as a result of which, the deceased took the decision of committing suicide by jumping before a running train on 21.4.2011. 3. On the basis of the suicidal note, the police registered a case under Section 306/34 IPC against the present applicants on 19.7.12. The statements of the family members of the deceased were recorded under Sections 164 and 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the police authorities, after registering the case under the two Sections referred to above, filed challan on 9.11.12. The matter was placed before the 6th Additional Sessions Judge who framed the charges under Section 306/34 IPC. The entire framing of the charges by the court below as per the counsel for the applicants was on the basis of the suicidal note. 4. The applicants have therefore, through the instant criminal revision, intended to challenge the said framing of charges under Sections 307 and 107 IPC. The entire framing of the charges by the court below as per the counsel for the applicants was on the basis of the suicidal note. 4. The applicants have therefore, through the instant criminal revision, intended to challenge the said framing of charges under Sections 307 and 107 IPC. The challenge by the applicants was that no case under Section 306 IPC or any other matter relating to offence under Section 107 IPC is made out against the applicants for the alleged death of DS. Pilley. 5. Counsel for the applicants submits that a plain reading of the suicidal note itself would reflect that the financial transaction which took place particularly in respect of the selling of rice mill belonging to the family of the deceased was in the month of March, 2009 whereas the deceased had committed suicide on 21.4.11 i.e. after 2 years from the date of transaction. The contention put forth by the applicants challenging the framing of charge was that the plain reading of the suicidal note reflects that if at all there was any dispute between the applicants as well the family of the deceased, the same is purely a civil dispute for which now the family members of the deceased have already filed a civil suit against the applicants which is pending consideration before the civil court. For all these reasons, counsel for the applicants submits that since no case is made out against the applicants, the applicants are entitled to for being discharged from the offence under Section 306/34 IPC. 6. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 as also the judgment dated 3.11.2011 passed by this Court in criminal revision No. 511/04 (Nihalluddin @ Munna Vs. State of Chhattisgarh). Both the cases referred above pertain to the offence punishable under Section 107 IPC. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 as also the judgment dated 3.11.2011 passed by this Court in criminal revision No. 511/04 (Nihalluddin @ Munna Vs. State of Chhattisgarh). Both the cases referred above pertain to the offence punishable under Section 107 IPC. The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371 (Supra) has categorically held that "ingredients of Section 107 are that instigating a person to do a thing and "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite to commit an act which in the instant case is not reflected from the plain reading of the suicidal note. The supreme court in para-12 of its judgment has held as under:-- The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 7. Similarly, this Court while deciding Cr. Rev. No. 511/04 in the case of Nihalluddin Vs. State of Chhattisgarh dated 3.11.10 has also relied upon the above referred judgment of Supreme Court and also the earlier judgments referred by the Supreme Court, considering the ingredients required for an offence under Section 306/107 IPC and held that there should be a clear mens rea to commit an offence under this section and there should be a direct or active act by the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. This court while deciding the case of Nihalluddin Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (supra) further held that there must be some evidence of instigation or cooperation or initial assistance by the accused persons forcing the "victim/deceased to commit suicide to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. 8. Further, if we read the suicidal note put forth by the prosecution, on the basis of which charge has been framed on the applicants and the circumstances narrated by the deceased in the suicidal note, it is evidently clear that deceased DS. Pilley was in great stress and if we further evaluate the contents of suicidal note, it would be evidently clear that the suicidal note does not reflect any ingredients to frame a case against the applicants for abatement of suicide committed by the deceased. Such ingredients being absent, offence under Section 306/107 IPC would not be made out. 9. Pilley was in great stress and if we further evaluate the contents of suicidal note, it would be evidently clear that the suicidal note does not reflect any ingredients to frame a case against the applicants for abatement of suicide committed by the deceased. Such ingredients being absent, offence under Section 306/107 IPC would not be made out. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed. The impugned order of framing of charges against the applicants is set aside. The charges framed under Section 307/107 IPC against the applicants are quashed and the applicants stand discharged from the criminal case. The applicants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Cr. M.P. No. 144 of 2014, Decided on 11-2-2014. ORDER 10. By way of the present Cr. M.P. the petitioners have pointed out some typographical errors made in the order dated 5-2-2014 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 301/2013 and have sought for its correction. 11. As per the counsel for the petitioners, in the first paragraph of the order the words "the quashing of" have been inadvertently inserted. Similarly, in the third line of paragraph 5 of the order in place of "Section 306/34 IPC" the words "Sections 307 and 107 IPC" have been written. Further, in paragraph 10 also in place of "Section 306/34 IPC" the words "Section 307/107 IPC" have been written and in the last two lines of the same paragraph it has been wrongly mentioned that "The applicants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case". 12. In view of the above, the order dated 5.2.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 301/2013 (Arvind and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh) stands amended/corrected to the following extent:-- 1. In the first paragraph of the order the words "the quashing of" be treated as deleted. 2. In the third line of paragraph 5 of the order in stead of "Sections 307 and 107 IPC" it be read as "Section 306/34 IPC". 3. In the third line of paragraph 10 of the order in stead of "Section 307/107 IPC" it be read as "Section 306/34 IPC. 4. The last two lines of paragraph 10 of the order that "The applicants are reported to be in jail. 3. In the third line of paragraph 10 of the order in stead of "Section 307/107 IPC" it be read as "Section 306/34 IPC. 4. The last two lines of paragraph 10 of the order that "The applicants are reported to be in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case" be also treated as deleted. 13. This instant Cr. M.P. stands allowed and is disposed of accordingly. This order may be treated as part of Order dated 5.2.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 301/2013 (Arvind and other Vs. State of Chhattisgarh).