Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 98 (MP)

Shrikant v. State of M. P.

2015-01-27

C.V.SIRPURKAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : C.V. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rahli district Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 793/2011, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed charge against the applicant/accused Shrikant under section 306 of the I.P.C. 2. As per prosecution story, deceased Guddibai, who was a 16 years old unmarried girl, who lived in village Hinauta. At around 1.30 p.m. on 19.4.2009, she had gone to nearby river bank to ease herself. At that time, accused/applicant Shrikant in order to outrage her modesty, caught hold of her hand and hugged her. When deceased Guddibai raised an alarm, her mother Ashok Rani and sister-in-law Sunita rushed to the spot. On seeing them, accused ran away from the spot. In the commotion, the accused/applicant dropped his mobile phone. Ashok Rani and Sunita brought the mobile phone to their house. However, immediately thereafter mortified by shame and apprehending infamy, Guddibai consumed poison. She was rushed to the hospital where she death her last. Marg intimation was immediately lodged in the police station Garha Kota. However, after investigation, the first information report was lodged against the accused after a delay of about two and a quarter years on 12.7.2011. 3. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused/applicant and a charge under section 306 of the I.P.C. was framed. 4. The order directing framing of the charge as aforesaid has been assailed in this revision mainly on the grounds that the first information report was lodged after a delay of two and a quarter years and the statements of material witnesses namely Ashok Rani and Sunita were also recorded after a delay of two and a quarter years. No investigation was made in order to establish that the mobile indeed belonged to the accused/applicant. It has also been submitted that the charge-sheet does not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offence of abetment as defined under the Indian Penal Code. On aforesaid grounds, it has been contended that the learned trial Court grievously erred in framing a charge under section 306 of the I.P.C. 5. It has also been submitted that the charge-sheet does not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offence of abetment as defined under the Indian Penal Code. On aforesaid grounds, it has been contended that the learned trial Court grievously erred in framing a charge under section 306 of the I.P.C. 5. With regard to the first ground that the first information report was lodged two and a quarter years after the date of the offence, it may be stated that the fact that deceased Guddibai had died on account of consuming poison had been notified to the police on the same day, by way of marg intimation. Thereafter, it was for the police to investigate the circumstances under which the poison was consumed by the deceased. It is true that there has been a long delay in registering the first information report; however, it has been recorded therein that it was lodged after receipt of F.S.L. report confirming presence of poisonous substance in the viscera. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court cannot examine the credibility of the investigation or the statements made by the witnesses under section 161. It only has to see as to whether the statements taken at their face value, would constitute commission of an offence or not. So the aspect regarding delay in lodging the FIR, at the stage of framing of charge, is not material. 6. With regard to the second ground, whereunder it has been contended that even if statements of all the prosecution witnesses are believed, an offence of abetment of suicide would not be constituted, learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of the Court to several authorities of the Supreme Court and the High Court. The case of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat, : (2010) 8 SCC 628 and Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal, : (2005) 2 SCC 659 are distinguishable on facts as in those cases suicide was alleged to have been committed following disputes at the place of work. The third case cited at bar namely Sanju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, : AIR 2002 SC 1998 , is also not applicable to the facts situation of this case as in this case suicide has been committed by an unmarried girl whose modesty was said to have been outraged. The third case cited at bar namely Sanju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, : AIR 2002 SC 1998 , is also not applicable to the facts situation of this case as in this case suicide has been committed by an unmarried girl whose modesty was said to have been outraged. Likewise, in the case of Ved Prakash vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, : 1995 MPLJ 458 , the matter related to re-payment of amount advanced. Thus, the cases cited at bar are only relevant to the extent of demonstrating that in order to constitute an offence under section 306, the ingredients constituting abetment as defined under the Indian Penal Code have to be made out. 7. For the purpose of case at hand, we may profitably refer to the case of Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal, : 2012 Cr.L.J. 4925, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether the circumstances had been such, which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. In the case of Dammu Sreene vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, : 2009 Cr.L.J. 3728, the Supreme Court held that where the accused had illicit relationship with the wife of deceased and took her away from his house at her instance in the presence in his relatives and on account of this series of events, the deceased had committed suicide due to insult and humiliation, the conviction of accused under section 306 was proper. 8. It may be noted here that in the instant case, the deceased was a 16 years old, unmarried, village girl. The accused is said to have outraged her modesty while she had gone to ease herself on the river bank by catching hold of her hand and hugging her. The incident was seen by the mother and her sister-in-law of the deceased. She immediately consumed poison after returning home due to shame and humiliation leading to mental trauma . In most sections of the Society in India particularly rural based ones, the modesty and chastity of a woman is placed at a very high pedestal and a loss thereof may cause severe mental stress. Thus, it cannot be said that the deceased was being hyper-sensitive or overreacted in consuming poison. 9. In most sections of the Society in India particularly rural based ones, the modesty and chastity of a woman is placed at a very high pedestal and a loss thereof may cause severe mental stress. Thus, it cannot be said that the deceased was being hyper-sensitive or overreacted in consuming poison. 9. In aforesaid circumstances, an interference by the High Court at least at the stage of framing of charge, is unwarranted. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused in the case. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. 10. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with the observation that learned trial Court shall decide the matter on its own merit without being influenced by observations made herein.