Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 222 (MP)

Girja Bai v. State of M. P.

2015-02-23

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2015
ORDER 1. By filing this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant has challenged the order dated 2.9.2004 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Katni in Sessions Trial No.84/2004, whereby the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code has been framed against the applicant. 2. Briefly stated the applicant's father-in-law Dayaram committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on 18.12.2003. His statement recorded by the Police on 18.12.2003 reads thus : ^^eSa xzke fVdqfj;k esa jgrk gw¡ ,oa dkLrdkjh dk dke djrk gw¡A esjs cMs+ yM+ds f'kopj.k dh cgw fxjtk ckbZ eq>s vius ikl ls edku dh vksj ls NksVs yM+ds f'kodqekj gYndj ds ikl jgrk gw¡A esjh cgw fxjtk ckbZ eq>s vius [ksr esa ikuh ugha ykus nsrh tc Hkh ikuh yxkus [ksr tkrk gw¡ rks fxjtk pIiy twrk crkrh gS vkSj esjs ls my>rh gS vkSj dgrh gS fd eq>s ekj ekj] rks eS viuh bTtr ysdj Hkkx vk;k gw¡A ,sls gh cgw ges'kk djrh gS ----------- viBuh; ------------------- eSaus filh esa Mkyus okys bUtsD'ku pkj ih fy;k gw¡A cgw ds vykok vkSj dksbZ ijs'kku ugha djrk gSA ;gh esjs dguk gSA** 3. On the basis of the said statement and also the statements of Siyabai, Shivkumar, Mayabai and Gendalal, the police registered case against the present applicant under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. The trial Court by the impugned order taking into consideration the aforesaid statements framed charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the present applicant. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this criminal revision. 4. According to the learned counsel for the applicant from the material collected by the prosecution during the investigation no case under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. He submits that even the entire allegations which have been levelled against the applicant are taken to be correct, the ingredients requires for framing the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be made out. He also submits that the applicant if was claiming her share and restricting the deceased from taking water from the field which was in her share, it cannot be said that she abated the deceased to commit suicide. He also submits that the applicant if was claiming her share and restricting the deceased from taking water from the field which was in her share, it cannot be said that she abated the deceased to commit suicide. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations against the applicant is that she used to threaten the deceased to beat him by Chappal. He submits that even assuming the same to be correct, that cannot be said to be a ground to abatement to commit suicide. 5. On the other hand learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned order and has argued that the applicant being daughter-in-law of the deceased and was all the time used to quarrel with him, the deceased got hurt and committed suicide and the cause of committing suicide was the abusing language used by her. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order and the evidence collected in the case diary, I am of the view that no case to frame charge against the applicant under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Even the entire evidence which has been collected by the prosecution, is taken to be correct, in my considered view the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant is not made out. The applicant cannot be said to have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 7. In the circumstances the impugned order passed by the trial Court deserves to be and is hereby quashed. The applicant is discharged from the alleged offence. 8. The criminal revision is allowed.