Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 992 (MP)

Karan Jatiya v. State of M. P.

2015-09-18

D.K.PALIWAL

body2015
ORDER 1. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, has been filed being aggrieved with the order passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.49/2015 on 10.2.2015, whereby charge under section 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant. 2. The facts of the case are that on 8.7.2014, Parichay Mittal was brought to hospital where he was found dead and the information was sent to police station Mahakal where Merg Intimation No.40/2014 under section 174 of CrPC, has been recorded. During enquiry, it was found that the deceased has taken loan from various persons including the applicant on interest. It is alleged that on 7.7.2014, at about 3-4 p.m., Amit Vyas and Akhilesh came to the shop of the complainant and they threatened son of complainant and demanded refund of money along with interest. It is also alleged that they use to charge 30-40 percent interest and they use to harass the son of complainant on account of which the son of the complainant consumed poison and committed suicide. After the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed and the case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court. The learned trial Court has framed the charge under section 306 of IPC against the applicant. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in framing charge under section 306 of IPC. There is prima facie no material indicating that the applicant abated the deceased to commit suicide. It is further prayed that in similar circumstances, this Court has set aside the charge under section 306 of IPC against the applicant vide order dated 16.7.2015, passed in Criminal Revision No.526/2015, and prayed for setting aside the charge. 4. The prayer is opposed by the learned Government Advocate. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. This Court in case of Babbi @ Jitendra v. State of M.P. [ 2008(III) MPWN 8 = 2008 (2) MPHT 160 ], observed that :- “9. For making out an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is ‘abetment’ by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :- 306. For making out an offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, one essential and requisite ingredient is ‘abetment’ by the accused to deceased to commit suicide. Section 306 of Indian Penal Code reads as under :- 306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 10. As per definition given in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code abetment is constituted by : (i) Instigating a person to commit an offence; or (ii) Engaging in a conspiracy to commit; or (iii) Intentionally aiding a person to commit it. 11. A person is said to ‘instigate’ another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by means of language, direct or indirect whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. The word ‘instigate’ means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act.” 6. In the instant case, there is no allegation against the applicant that he provoked, incited or goaded the deceased or even encouraged him to commit suicide. They merely demanded money which the deceased allegedly taken on loan and they never intended that the deceased should commit suicide. 7. In my opinion, there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the present applicant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In absence of such essential ingredients of abetment, no charge for the offence under section 306 of IPC is made out against the present applicant. The present case is not different than that of other co-accused Ajay and Shubham who were discharged earlier. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.2.2015, passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.49/2015, is set aside. The present applicant is discharged from charge under section 306 of the IPC. 9. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.