1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.3766/2021
(SUSHIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Through Video Conferencing
Gwalior, Dated : 07/07/2021
Shri M.M. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Manish Nayak, learned counsel for the State.
None for the complainant.
Case diary is available.
It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the complainant
has been informed about the pendency of this appeal as required
under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
This Second Criminal Appeal for grant of bail has been filed
under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 against the order dated
09.04.2021 passed by Special Judge, Atrocities, Ashok Nagar by
which the application filed by the appellant for grant of bail has been
rejected.
The appellant has been arrested on 04.02.2021 in connection
with Crime No.93/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
Ashok Nagar for offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, under
Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that according
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.3766/2021
(SUSHIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
to the prosecution case, the appellant had given a loan of Rs. 500/- to
the deceased and in lieu of that he had already recovered Rs. 25,000/-
and was harassing him to pay more amount, and therefore, he
committed suicide by jumping in front of running train. It is
submitted that even if entire allegations are accepted, it is clear that it
is a sheer case of money transaction and the allegations are not
covered by Section 107 IPC and thus it is clear that no offence under
Section 306 IPC is made out. It is further submitted that the appellant
has been falsely implicated. Earlier the appellant had filed a PIL
complaining encroachment on Government land and since some of
the relatives of the deceased were dispossessed, therefore, they were
aggrieved by the appellant and thus, he has been falsely implicated. It
is further submitted that infact the appellant has also filed one
complaint against one Constable Ram Singh Ahirwar for the offence
punishable under Sections 323, 342, 343, 327 of IPC and since
summons have been issued, therefore, the Police has also falsely
implicated. It is further submitted that as per the postmortem report
the injury was on the back side of the head of deceased and a bottle
of liquor was seized from the cloths of deceased which clearly show
that the deceased was under influence of alcohol and it appears that
he accidentally came nearer to the train as a result he lost his life, and
this case is being the color of suicide.
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRA No.3766/2021
(SUSHIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Per contra, the appeal is opposed by the counsel for the
respondent/State. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the
appellant has criminal history and as many as 13 cases have been registered against him. Out of which one more offence under Section 306 of IPC has been registered and in that case also the deceased had committed suicide because exorbitant interest demanded by the appellant.
In reply it is submitted by counsel for the appellant that appellant has already acquitted in six cases.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of Sanju Vs. State of M.P., 2002 (5) SCC 371. It is submitted that the ingredients of abetment are not available because it is a case of money transaction and if the appellant was demanding his money back from deceased, then it cannot be said that he abetted the deceased in any manner. So far as the contention of counsel for the appellant is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. It is the case of the prosecution that in lieu of Rs. 500/-, the appellant had already charged Rs. 25,000/- and he was further harassing the deceased for paying some additional amount. By no stretch of imagination, this allegation can said to be a sheer allegation of money transaction. It is not the case of appellant 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.3766/2021 (SUSHIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) that he was demanding the legitimate amount. Further more, it has not been argued that the allegation of charging Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of Rs. 500/ was justified in any manner. If a money lender has already charged exorbitant interest from the borrower without any justification and still he is pressurizing the borrower to pay additional amount, and the exorbitant amount which has already been charged is shocking to the conscience of this Court, then it cannot be said that it is a simple case of money transaction. Prima-facie it can be said the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC are present.
So far as the contention of the appellant that since he had filed PIL complaining the encroachment on Government land and since the relatives of the deceased were dispossessed, therefore appellant has been falsely implicated is concerned, the appellant has not given the details of the relatives of the deceased who were dispossessed. Further the suicide note which was written by the deceased has been found to be in his hand writing. Why deceased would put his life to an end merely on the ground that his relatives were dispossessed from the land? Thus, this argument advanced by counsel for appellant is far fetched argument which cannot be accepted.
The next contention of the appellant is that since he has filed a complaint against one Constable Ram Singh, therefore he has been 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.3766/2021 (SUSHIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) falsely implicated is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the suicide note was left by the deceased which is in his handwriting and his handwriting has been identified by his wife and other witnesses. Again why a person would put his life to an end merely on the ground that one complaint is lodged against one police Constable ?.
So far as the contention of counsel for the appellant that since the deceased was under the influence of alcohol, and therefore, it is a case of accident is concerned, the same cannot be considered and decided at this stage. It is the defence which is to be adjudicated by the trial Court after considering the evidence which would come on record.
For the time being, one thing is clear that the deceased had died in front of running train. Further a suicide note has also been found which clearly alleges against the appellant. If it was an accident, there was no reason for the deceased to leave a suicide note.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
However, it is clarified that since the appeal was argued at length and this Court has considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant by making certain observations, therefore, 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA No.3766/2021 (SUSHIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) the trial Court is requested not to get prejudiced or influenced by any of the observation made by this Court and the trial shall be decided in accordance with the evidence which would come on record.
With aforesaid observations, this appeal is dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Aman AMAN TIWARI 2021.07.07 20:37:46 +05'30'