Allahabad High Court
Suresh vs State Of U.P. on 8 August, 2014
Bench: Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 57
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1051 of 2008
Revisionist :- Suresh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- G.P. Dikshit,P. Dixit
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.R. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. With the consent of parties, the revision is being disposed of today.
I have heard arguments advanced from both sides. Perused the records.
The facts of the present case reveal the pathetic tale of an unfortunate young mother (deceased Kaushalya) committing suicide along with her three little daughters by throwing herself and her daughters before a running train. Her father Chunni lal lodged an FIR against her son-in-law and the in-laws of his deceased daughter but the police submitted final report in the matter. Aggrieved father, filed a protest petition against the final report, which was rejected by the Magistrate. Chunni Lal then preferred a revision No. 154 of 2007 against the order of the Magistrate rejecting the protest petition which was partly allowed by the order impugned dated 25.2.2008 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Lalitpur and the Magistrate was directed to summon the husband under section 306 I.P.C. The in-laws were exonerated from criminal liability. Now the husband has approached this Court by means of this revision assailing the legality of the aforesaid order directing the Magistrate to summon him.
The order dated 25.2.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge has been challenged mainly on the ground that no offence under section 306 I.P.C is made out against the revisionist. Admittedly, the marriage of deceased and the revisionist had taken place much before 7 years so there will be no presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act that the suicide was abetted by the revisionist. It has been vehemently argued by Mr. Dixit, the learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Additional Sessions Judge had without any application of mind, illegally directed to summon the revisionist for the offence under section 306 I.P.C. without even considering that there is no iota of evidence on the record to show that there was any instigation or abetment on the part of revisionist which led to Kaushalya for committing suicide. Placing reliance on the following case laws Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 387, Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 896 and Sonti Rama Krishna Vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and another (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 578, learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to commit suicide. More-so there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Learned counsel has contended that the evidence available on record clearly shows that there is no such evidence to prove that there was any direct or indirect act of instigation by the revisionist so as to facilitate the commission of suicide.
On the aforesaid grounds it has been prayed that the impugned order be quashed.
Learned A.G.A and Sri A.R. Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the revision by contending that the revisionist is the husband of the deceased Kaushalya. No women having three little children in her lap would commit suicide unless the circumstances become so worse that to embrace the death appears to her a better option than to live.
It has further been argued by Sri Dwivedi that by the order impugned the revisionist has only been summoned to face trial. He has still sufficient opportunity to ventilate his grievance before the trial court by moving application for his discharge at the appropriate stage.
Having heard learned counsel from both the sides and after perusing the record, it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is made out against the revisionist. At the stage of summoning an accused the Courts are required to look only that whether a prima facie case is made out or not against the accused. The revisionist being the husband of the deceased and father of little girls who have died with their mother was duty bound to take proper care and give protection to them, but he failed to do so. The relationship between husband and wife is of such nature that it is very difficult to have any direct or even indirect evidence of the fact as to what transpired between them within the four corners of their room, instigating any one of them to take such extreme step as that of suicide. This court sitting in revision is not supposed to scrutinize the detailed evidence and to express any opinion regarding the merits of the case which has not even started as yet. The judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble the Apex Court filed by the revisionist cited above, have no application to the facts of the present case because in all those cases, the appeal was filed by the accused persons after affirmation of their conviction by the High court and not at the initial stage of summoning them as in the instant case.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the legal position discussed above, this revision appears to have no force and it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. The revisionist is directed to surrender before the trial court within 45 days. It is further directed that if the revisionist appears before the court concerned within such period along with a certified copy of this order and applies for bail, his bail application shall be considered by the court concerned in accordance with law laid down in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 affirmed in the judgement passed by the Apex Court reported in 2009(3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Order Date :- 8.8.2014
G.S
