Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2 (MP)

Rishi Jalori v. State of M. P.

2019-01-02

SHEEL NAGU

body2019
ORDER : Revisional powers of this court under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. are invoked for challenging the order of framing of charge dated 18/9/2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.), in Sessions Case No. 17/2014 by which charges for offences punishable under sections 294, 509, 354-D, 306, Indian Penal Code and section 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 have been framed against the present petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission. 3. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is in regard to framing of charge under section 306, Indian Penal Code and therefore the present petition was heard and is being decided qua the said sole contention. 3.1 Before proceeding it is relevant to point out that co-accused Raju Nayak has been acquitted by judgment dated 28-4-2014 in SST No. 52/13 by Special Judge, Vidisha vide P/2. The petitioner at that point of time was absconding and after being arrested was proceeded against and thus the trial could commence later where the impugned charge has been framed as aforesaid. 3.2 The facts of the case reveal that on 14-9-2013 the deceased who was 17-18 years old girl was brought to the hospital having sustained 70%-80% burn injuries. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 15-9-2013 which led to conduction of postmortem on the same day where cause of death was opined to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of burn injuries and their complications. The postmortem report further reveals that deceased was carrying a male fetus which was preserved and sent for DNA test. As a necessary consequence, FIR was registered at Crime No. 496/13 by P.S. Dehat, District Vidisha whereafter investigation followed and final report in shape of charge-sheet was put up alleging offences punishable under sections 109, 504, 506, 509,34, 354-D, 306, Indian Penal Code and section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The FIR and statements of witnesses which formed part of the charge-sheet reveal that petitioner along with acquitted co-accused Raju Nayak used to stalk the deceased and used to pressurize her for withdrawing her earlier complaint lodged against the accused. The allegations reveal that stalking and harassment meted out to the deceased was not a one time event but was repeatedly undertaken by the petitioner and acquitted co-accused. The allegations reveal that stalking and harassment meted out to the deceased was not a one time event but was repeatedly undertaken by the petitioner and acquitted co-accused. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that piqued by said stalking and the constant mental and physical pressure exerted by the petitioner and the acquitted co-accused, the deceased committed suicide by burning herself. 3.3 From the record it is evident that though attempts were made to record dying declaration but the same could not succeed as the deceased was not physically and mentally fit to give her statement. 3.4 The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding offence punishable under section 306, Indian Penal Code is that the cause of stalking alleged against the petitioner, is a far fetched cause which cannot in the ordinary course of things be treated to form live and proximate link between cause and suicide. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere stalking or abusing or intimidating cannot satisfy ingredients of offence of abetment as defined in section 107, Indian Penal Code and therefore the petitioner cannot be alleged with offence abetment to suicide. Lastly, it is contended that the real cause of suicide by deceased was to save herself from social indignation stemming from deceased becoming pregnant which fact stands corroborated by postmortem report reflecting the deceased carrying a live male fetus. 3.5 The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner would have been appealing and probably acceptable if the deceased was a person of majority and maturity. The deceased herein was 17 years old girl of impressionable age going through social and emotional changes associated to adolescence where number of psychological, physical and mental changes take places in human body. Thus, in cases where the abetment to suicide relates to a person of impressionable age as is the case herein, the yardstick of adjudication becomes stringent. This court had an occasion to deal with a case attended with similar circumstances in Criminal Revision No. 3662/17, Kuldeep Jadon vs. State of M.P. decided on 4-5-2018 where a person of impressionable age had committed suicide leading to framing of charge of abetment to suicide which was upheld by this court. This court had an occasion to deal with a case attended with similar circumstances in Criminal Revision No. 3662/17, Kuldeep Jadon vs. State of M.P. decided on 4-5-2018 where a person of impressionable age had committed suicide leading to framing of charge of abetment to suicide which was upheld by this court. It would be appropriate for the sake of clarity to re-produce relevant paras of the said decision :- “3.6 It is undisputed that the deceased was a girl of impressionable age of 17 years. At this age, the power to visualize the consequence of one’s action is not very clear and is ordinarily blurred by zeal of young and impulsive mind. When the petitioner along with other co-accused was stalking the deceased he was well aware of her tender age and impressionable mind and therefore can very well be ascribed with the knowledge that continuous and persistent stalking could cause havoc upon the mental equilibrium of prosecutrix to the extent of driving her to take any extreme step. Whether the cause of stalking was sufficient to satisfy the basic ingredients of abetment as defined in Section 107, Indian Penal Code is not for this court to decide at this early stage of prosecution. The reason is not far to see. The allegations clearly make out a case where the strong suspicion arises against the petitioner along with his friends who are alleged to have continuously stalked the deceased for several months. The factum of stalking being prima facie sufficient or not to drive the deceased to commit suicide can be judged by the trial at the time of marshalling of evidence and does not lie within the domain of this court while exercising limited revisional jurisdiction especially in the absence of jurisdictional error. 4. As discussed above, the fact and allegation prima facie establish a case of strong suspicion of stalking leading to abetment to suicide, leaving no room for interference by this court except to dismiss the petition. 5. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.” 4. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that looking to the impressionable age of the prosecutrix, it can safely be held that the case alleged against the petitioner based upon overt acts of repeated stalking, pressurizing and abusing, on prima facie assessment constitutes offence of abatement. 5. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.” 4. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that looking to the impressionable age of the prosecutrix, it can safely be held that the case alleged against the petitioner based upon overt acts of repeated stalking, pressurizing and abusing, on prima facie assessment constitutes offence of abatement. There is strong suspicion against the petitioner of having committed the offence of abetment to suicide. 5. In view of above, the impugned framing of charge under section 306, Indian Penal Code cannot be found fault with. 6. Before parting, it is observed that none of the findings recorded herein shall adversely affect the right and defence available to either of the parties in the trial, accordance with law. 7. Consequently, the present revision stands dismissed, sans cost. Revision dismissed.