Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 407 (MP)

Meena Devi v. State of M. P.

2015-04-09

S.K.PALO

body2015
ORDER : 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena in Sessions Trial No.190/2013, whereby charge was framed under section 306 of IPC against the petitioners. 2. The material facts of the petition are that Ku. Pooja died on 4.2.2013 at about 5:00 a.m., under the jurisdiction of Police Station Porsa, District Morena. She was found hanging in the room with the help of her duppatta in the ceiling fan. It is alleged that the petitioner No. 2 Sher Singh had an affair with Pooja and he wanted to marry with her. But Pooja didn't want to marry Sher Singh. Petitioner No.1 Meena Devi is the Bhabhi (sister­in-law) of the petitioner No.2 Sher Singh. And is resident of village Tarsama. It is alleged that on 3.2.2013 at about 8:00 p.m., petitioner No.1 Meena Devi took Pooja to her home, thereafter Pooja didn’t return to her house. At about 10:00 p.m., when Soma Devi went to Meena Devi's house, she told her that Pooja has not come to her house. 3. At about 3:00 a.m., petitioner No.1 Meena Devi came to drop Pooja at her house. On query from Soma Devi, Pooja told her that she has no business to know where she had gone. Soma informed the same to the father of deceased Pooja. In the morning, when Soma Devi returned home after attending the call of nature, she found Pooja hanging on the fan by her Duppatta. By the time when she was brought down, she was dead. Meena Devi petitioner No.1 and her brother­in-law Sher Singh petitioner No.2 were pressurizing Pooja to marry with Sher Singh. Because of the harassments by the petitioners, deceased Pooja committed suicide. 4. Learned ASJ, Ambah, District Morena, under section 306 of IPC framed charge by the impugned order against the petitioners vide order dated 25.2.2013. 5. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the petitioners are falsely implicated. They have not abeted Pooja to commit suicide. If the statement of the witness are taken for granted the evidence “of instigation is” missing. The petitioners have never abeted Pooja to commit suicide. Hence, the order of framing charge be set aside. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the contentions. They have not abeted Pooja to commit suicide. If the statement of the witness are taken for granted the evidence “of instigation is” missing. The petitioners have never abeted Pooja to commit suicide. Hence, the order of framing charge be set aside. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the contentions. It is contended that because of pressure from accused persons to marry with Sher Singh, Pooja has committed suicide.Therefore, the petitioners are responsible for the death of deceased Pooja and charge has been framed against the petitioners under section 306 of IPC is correct. 7. On behalf of the applicants reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of “Madiya @ Mahadev v. State of M.P. 2006(2) JLJ 296 =2006 CriLJ 1963, wherein accused alleged to have tried to outrage modesty of deceased and thereafter she committed suicide by hanging with help of rope. This Court held that the accused did not instigate her to commit suicide. Therefore, offence under section 306 is not made out. 8. In a similar case Alka Grewal v. State of M.P. reported in 2000 CriLJ 672, Wherein husband committed suicide and in the suicide note it was stated that the character of wife was immoral, this Court held that it is not sufficient to infer that wife abetted to commit suicide. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that in the matter of Swamy Prahalad Das v. State of M.P. and another, reported in 1995(2) Vidhi Bhasvar 218=1995 SCC (Cri) 943, wherein there was a sexual jealousy between the appellant and the deceased and during quarrel the appellant allegedly remarked to the deceased to go and die and thereafter the deceased went to home and committed suicide. It was held by the apex Court that suicide is not direct result of the words uttered by the accused and sessions Court erred in summoning the accused persons to face the trial.” 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions, the word “abetment” means involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. The petitioners have, if at all pressurized Pooja to marry with Sher Singh, it could not be viewed as abeting her to commit suicide. Therefore, offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out by the prosecution against the petitioners. 10. The petitioners have, if at all pressurized Pooja to marry with Sher Singh, it could not be viewed as abeting her to commit suicide. Therefore, offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out by the prosecution against the petitioners. 10. That being so, impugned order whereby charge under section 306 of IPC is framed against the petitioners is hereby quashed. The petitioners are discharged. 11. This revision is therefore, allowed accordingly. ..............