Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1038 (MP)

Rajesh Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-09-30

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition has been preferred under sections 397, 401 of CrPC, assailing the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the 1st ASJ, Gwalior in S.T. No. 426/2012, whereby the learned ASJ has framed charges against the petitioners under sections 498A, 306 of IPC and in alternative 302 of IPC. 2. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of this petitioner are :- That the deceased Puja was married to Rajesh Singh, the petitioner No.1 in the year 1999. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are father and mother; and the petitioner No.4 is the younger brother of the petitioner No.1. It is alleged that after her marriage for 2-3 years everything was normal. Later, behaviour of the in-laws towards Puja was changed. The husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law were taunting to Puja and were threatening her of her life for demand of money. They also threatened that after 7-8 years Puja will be eliminated and Rajesh will be married for second time. 3. Puja used to intimate this to her brother Jitendra Singh. The demand of money and articles were made. Mobile phone was given to Puja 3-4 times but her in-laws used to take away the same from her so that she would not be able to speak to her family members. In the year 2007-2008 the in-laws beaten Puja sent her to Raipur and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- and threaten that if the amount is not received by them, they will eliminate Puja. Father of Puja gave Rs.1,00,000/- for construction of boundary. Despite that the in-laws of the Puja were harassing and threatening her. Puja intimated about this harassment to her father and brother. They deposited money 3-4 times with petitioner No.1 and No.3. Puja was not being given food properly and she was being harassed. On 13.2.2012 father of Puja came to Gwalior from Raipur and returned on 15.2.2012. Puja asked her father to go back otherwise they will kill him. 4. Therefore, he returned without meeting Puja. Thereafter Puja intimated to her brother Upendra by telephone that if she finds any chance, she will run away from the house of her in-laws, her in-laws are not giving food for 3 – 4 days. She further said that her life would end if this continue for 3 – 4 days more. On 19.12.2012 at about 1:15 p.m. a miss call was received from petitioner No.1. She further said that her life would end if this continue for 3 – 4 days more. On 19.12.2012 at about 1:15 p.m. a miss call was received from petitioner No.1. When Upendra called back, petitioner No.1 Rajesh informed him that his sister Puja is no more. The father and brother of Puja alleged that the in-laws of Puja harassed to such an extent physically and mentally, they suspect that Puja was murdered by her in-laws. In the post-mortem report it was found that the deceased was died due to asphyxia. 5. After due investigation, Police Kampoo filed charge sheet under sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 6. By the impugned order the learned trial Court framed charge for the offences punishable under section 498A, 306 of IPC and in the alternative section 302 of IPC. 7. The petitioners have assailed the framing of charges on the ground that there is no evidence regarding any harassment, soon before the her death. The petitioners have also claimed that the ingredient of section 306 is lacking . Therefore, they prayed to set aside the order dated 8.1.2013 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Diwan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2003(II) M.P Weekly Notes 64, Ajay Patodia v. State of M.P., reported in 2003(4) MPLJ 195 , Devendra Singh v. State of M.P., reported in 2007(III) MPWN 95 , Surendra Jain v. State of M.P., reported in 2007(1) MPWN 85 , Prakashchand v. State of M.P., reported in 2007(1) MPWN 20 and in case of Vivek Kumar Jain and another v. State of M.P. and another, reported in 2015(1) MPHT 75 . 9. In the case of Diwan Singh (supra), there was some dispute regarding the property between the parties. In the case of Vivek Kumar (supra), there was demand of money from the deceased which was borrowed by him. In the case of Prakashchand (supra), there was a dispute with regard to loan transaction. In the case of Ajay Patodia (supra), due to non-payment of loan and economic crisis the deceased committed suicide. In the case of Devendra Singh (supra), there was dispute regarding demand of money lent to the deceased. In the case of Surendra Jain (supra), there was dispute regarding settlement of accounts between the partners. In the case of Ajay Patodia (supra), due to non-payment of loan and economic crisis the deceased committed suicide. In the case of Devendra Singh (supra), there was dispute regarding demand of money lent to the deceased. In the case of Surendra Jain (supra), there was dispute regarding settlement of accounts between the partners. In the of Pramod Kumar and another v. State of M.P., reported in 2007(II) MPWN 26 there was dispute regarding money transaction. Hence the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, in these cases, it has been held that there is no evidence abating, instigating or goading to commit suicide. 10. The present case there is matrimonial dispute and there was demand of money. Because of which the deceased Puja was harassed by her in-laws and for that only she died taking extreme steps to end her life. There has been intention and positive acts by the petitioners which promoted the deceased to commit suicide. To constitute offence under section 306 of IPC the prosecution has to establish that (i) a person has committed suicide (ii) that such suicide was abated by the accused. In other words, the offence under section 306 of IPC would stand only if there is abatement for commission of crime. The incident took place at the matrimonial home of the deceased. 11. The deceased was living at her in-laws house at Gwalior. She informed her brother Upendra Singh on 28.2.2012 by her cell phone that her in-laws are threatening her and are not giving food and on 19.2.2012 she died. That means the harassment was soon before her death. 12. On behalf of the petitioners, it is strenuously argued that no call details have been seized. Therefore, it cannot be substantiated that her brother Upendra has actually received the call from the deceased. 13. In this regard, it would be sufficient to mention here that meticulous examination of evidence is not necessary at the time of framing of charge, only prima facie case is to be seen, whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt is not to be seen at this stage. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is probable consequence, at the stage of framing of charge, probative value material on record cannot be gone into. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the commission of offence is probable consequence, at the stage of framing of charge, probative value material on record cannot be gone into. It is not necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that accusation which they are bringing against the accused person bound to be brought home against him. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition is dismissed.