Sushil Kumar Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3057 MP

                             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

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

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,

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'