Allahabad High Court
Ram Murat Pandey vs State Of U.P. & Another on 8 April, 2011
Bench: S.C. Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4206 of 2001
Petitioner :- Ram Murat Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another
Petitioner Counsel :- I.K. Chaturvedi,R.M. Dwivedi
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri I.K.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
In the year 1998, applicant Ram Murat Pandey was posted as Health Worker in Primary Health Centre, Karvi, Mau, District Chitrakoot. Due to certain grievance he started indefinite fast unto death w.e.f. 27.10.1998 and proclaimed that he would commit self- immolation on 30.10.1998. FIR was lodged by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karvi, Chitrakoot at P.S. Karvi on 28.10.1998 and the applicant was arrested on the same day. Charge sheet was filed against him for having committed offence under Section 309 I.P.C. At the time of arrest, one wooden takhat and two banners were recovered from the place of incident. The charge-sheet was registered in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot as Crl. Case No. 1473/IX/98, arising out of Crime No. 357 of 1998. Applicant moved an application for discharge, which was rejected by order dated 25.08.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot. Criminal Revision No. 69 of 2000 filed by the applicant was also dismissed by District & Sessions Judge Chitrakoot, vide judgment and order dated 05.07.2001. The aforesaid order as well as proceedings are under challenge in this application unders Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel submitted that no attempt to commit suicide was made out by the applicant and the applicant did not commit any act towards the commission of such offence. Therefore, offence punishable under Section 309 IPC is not made out against him.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the applicant went on fast-unto-death and also threatened to commit self immolation and, therefore, offence under Section 309 IPC has been committed.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the act of the applicant in threatening to go on indefinite hunger strike and self-immolation might be considered as misconduct on the part of a government servant, but does not amount to any act towards the commission of an offence to commit suicide.
I find sufficient force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant started hunger strike and it may also be assumed that he threatened that he would commit self-immolation on 30.10.1998. But at the same time it is also clear that during the period of three days, the applicant might have changed his mind at any time. Simply by sitting on dharna and going on indefinite hunger strike does not amount to an act towards attempt to commit suicide. The applicant wanted to highlight his grievances and for this purpose only such drama was enacted. If the grievances of a person are not attended to by the authorities, some times, unusual methods may be adopted to draw public attention, but the action of the applicant does not amount to attempt to commit suicide unless some specific act was done which indicated and he was about to commit suicide and had taken some act towards final commission of the offence. The period of three days from 27.10.98 to 30.10.1998 was a very long period wherein the applicant could, at any time, change his mind. Moreover, the applicant was arrested on 28.10.1998 and was thus prevented from taking any action towards commission of suicide. No kerosene oil, petrol, matchbox or other material was found on spot which could be used by the applicant for committing suicide by self-immolation. Therefore, in my opinion, there was no attempt to commit suicide by the applicant and the prosecution was unwarranted. A simple preventive arrest was sufficient for this purpose and the crime should not have been registered by the police.
In view of the above, the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. Impugned orders passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Judge Chitrakoot and also charge sheet and entire proceedings of the aforesaid criminal case are quashed.
Order Date :- 8.4.2011
v.k.updh.
