Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 439 (MP)

Indrajeet Singh v. State of M. P.

2019-06-24

SHEEL NAGU

body2019
ORDER 1. Revisional powers of this Court under section 397/401 CrPC are invoked assailing order of framing of charge dated 23.11.2016 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.), against the petitioners who are 3 in number alleging offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC for abetment to suicide of deceased Malati who died due to hanging. 2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission and final disposal. 3. Sessions Trial No. 165/12 in the Court of A.S.J., Ambah, District Morena where petitioners are accused arose out of refusal of the Court to accept closure report submitted by police and a complaint under section 200 CrPC preferred by respondent No. 2 against petitioners in December 2007. 3.1 The cause raised in the complaint filed under section 200 CrPC(filed vide page 22 of the petition) reveals that on 28.2.2005 at 5 p.m. when deceased was returning home from market she came across petitioner-accused Indrajeet who forcefully subjected deceased to rape and threatened her of dire consequences if she disclosed the said incident to anyone. The complaint further reveals that when the deceased went to police station Porsa to lodge FIR informing commission of cognizable offence of rape, the police though lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 44/05 alleging less grave offences under sections 354, 323 r/w 506B IPC. Aggrieved, the deceased complained to the S.P. on 7.3.2005 for registering offence in the appropriate section i.e., 376 IPC. Ultimately, chargesheet was filed on 26.10.2007 alleging offence punishable under sections 376, 323 and 506B IPC. The complaint further alleges that when the proceedings in the aforesaid trial was underway and 23.1.2006 was fixed as date of hearing, the deceased and her father attended the said hearing for recording of their statement. On reaching the Court the deceased and father met the petitioner who were wielding firearm and threatened the deceased and her father to enter into a settlement. The complaint thereafter alleges that deceased and her father out of fear returned home without getting their statements recorded in the Court. The complaint further reveals that on 24.1.2006 the petitioner/accused trespassed into the house of deceased and threatened that on the next date of hearing i.e., 24.2.2006 if the deceased does not settle the matter then they would not allow her and her father to live in the village. The complaint further reveals that on 24.1.2006 the petitioner/accused trespassed into the house of deceased and threatened that on the next date of hearing i.e., 24.2.2006 if the deceased does not settle the matter then they would not allow her and her father to live in the village. The complaint thereafter alleges that the fear and intimidation extended by petitioner/accused on 24.1.2006 instigated the deceased to commit suicide by hanging herself on 26.1.2006. Thus the complaint dated 4.12.2007 filed by father of deceased alleged offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC against the petitioners/accused. 3.2 The statements of witnesses in support of the said complaint filed by complainant (father of the deceased) are more or less in the same lines of the allegations contained in the complaint. Sessions Trial 165/12 which is now pending in connection with offence punishable under section 306 IPC against the petitioners, is further based on a suicide note vide P-3 left behind by the deceased. 3.3 On the strength of the aforesaid factual matrix following grounds are raised by learned counsel for petitioners in support of challenge to the order of framing of charge and the entire consequential prosecution vide Sessions Trial No. 162/15 : (a) The suicide note Ex.P-3 left behind by deceased does not implicate the petitioners. (b) That the complaint dated 4.12.2007 filed under section 200 CrPC, by the father of the deceased is founded upon the fact that threat and intimidation was extended during Court proceedings on 23.1.2006 when the deceased and her father had come for recording of their statements in the said sessions trial. In this regard it is submitted that on 23.1.2006 the sessions trial was not fixed for recording of the evidence since charge in the said sessions trial was framed as late as on 26.10.2007 as per the order-sheet which has been brought on record vide document No. 5806/17 filed on 20.7.2017. 3.4 Taking up the first ground of suicide note left behind by the deceased being exculpatory qua the petitioners, the said contention appears to be correct as the suicide note prima facie appears to squarely blame her parents and brothers for the misfortunes faced by deceased and does not caste any aspersions or blame against the petitioners/accused. 3.4 Taking up the first ground of suicide note left behind by the deceased being exculpatory qua the petitioners, the said contention appears to be correct as the suicide note prima facie appears to squarely blame her parents and brothers for the misfortunes faced by deceased and does not caste any aspersions or blame against the petitioners/accused. 3.5 As regards second ground, a close scrutiny of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2 dated 4.12.2007 under section 200 CrPC alleging offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC against petitioners, reveals that though the contention of petitioners appears to be true that 23.1.2006 was not a date fixed in Sessions Trial No. 165/12 for recording of evidence but the allegation of abetment to suicide is founded upon the threat and intimidation extended by petitioners on 24.1.2006 when the petitioner Indrajeet trespassed into the house of the deceased and her father (respondent No.2) and pressurized the deceased and her father to enter into settlement or else the deceased would be defamed and her father ostracized. This intimidation and threat alleged to be extended by petitioners/accused is said to be the cause for the deceased to commit suicide by hanging herself on 26.1.2006. 3.6 Thus, the second ground as regards there being no hearing fixed in sessions trial on 23.1.2006 for recording of statement is of no avail to the petitioners. The cause raised did not arise on 23.1.2006 but on 24.1.2006. 3.7 Whether the incident as alleged in the complaint dated 24.1.2006 which is stated to be cause of suicide actually took place or not is for the trial Court to decide after adducing of evidence. The veracity of allegations contained in the complaint cannot be gone into at this stage. 4. Bare reading of allegations in complaint reveals a reasonably strong suspicion against petitioners/accused of having abetted the suicide committed by deceased. Essential ingredient of live and proximate link between cause and suicide, seems to exist which is enough to sustain framing of charge under section 306/34 IPC. 5. In view of above discussions, this Court declines interference in the absence of any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of framing of charge under section 306/34 IPC. 6. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.