Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rameshchandra @ Ramesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2022
Author: Rajendra Kumar (Verma)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 13th OF JULY, 2022
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1139 of 2021
Between:-
1. RAMESHCHANDRA @ RAMESH S/O
BHAWARLAL SHARMA , AGED ABOUT 42
YEAR S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
BAWLIYA, TEHSIL MAHIDPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. RAMKUNWAR @ PREMBAI W/O BHAWARLAL ,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
WIFE GRAM BAWLIYA TEH. MAHIDPURA DIST.
UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. REKHABAI W/O GHIRDHARILAL , AGED ABOUT
35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE GRAM
BAWLIYA TEH. MAHIDPURA DIST. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. BHAWARLAL S/O SHOBHARAM , AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE GRAM
BAWLIYA TEH. MAHIDPURA DIST. UJJAIN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. ANANADILAL S/O BHAWARLAL SHARMA ,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE GRAM BAWLIYA TEH.
MAHIDPURA DIST. UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. GHIRDHARILAL S/O BHAWARLAL SHARMA ,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, GRAM BAWLIYA TEH.
MAHIDPURA DIST. UJJAIN NOW R/O JAISHREE
NAGAR JAISINGHPURA UJJAIN (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI VIRENDRA SHARMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONERS)
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.07.18
AND
18:48:50 IST
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
HOUSE OFFICER THR. P.S. MAHIDPUR
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. HARSHLATA SONI PL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF
ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This revision coming on for ADMISSION this day, with the consent of
parties, heard finally and the court passed the following:
ORDER
Present revision petition has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. on
behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2021 passed
in ST No.14/2021 by 2nd ASJ, Mahidpur, District Ujjain whereby the learned
Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners under Section 306/34, &
306 of IPC.
According to the prosecution story, on 18.06.2020, police station
Mahidpur, District Ujjain received an information regarding committal of suicide
by the deceased through the complainant Ankit, son of the deceased. On the
said information, the police registered Dehati Nalish Merg No.0/2020. During
investigation, the police recovered a suicide note written by the deceased in
which he has made allegations against the petitioner for not sending his wife to
his house and not returning the money taken by the petitioners and due to the
harassment of the petitioners, the deceased has committed suicide. Thereafter,
after the detailed enquiry/investigation, the petitioners were implicated in the
present case.
Vide the impugned order, the learned trial Court has framed the charges
against the petitioners as stated above.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.07.18
18:48:50 IST
passed by learned judge is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the
case and the material available on record. The learned trial Court has completely
erred in not considering the fact that the case of the prosecution is completely
false and based on suicide note written by the deceased. It is also submitted
that the petitioners are in-laws of the deceased and they have neither obstruct
his wife but they were not completing the demand of Rs.5,00,000/- of the
deceased. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence of
harassment or causing abetment to the deceased. Even there is no allegations
regarding any harassment and the learned Judge has erred in framing the charges
by overlooking the parameters of 'abetment' which has been stated in Section
107 of IPC. Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in judgment of Chitresh
Kumar Chopra vs. State of (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2009 (16)
SCC 605 where the person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing if he,
firstly , instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engaged with one or
more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if
any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in
order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing. There is no ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance over the
judgments passed by apex Court in the case of Shabbir Hussain vs. The
State of Madhya Prades in SLP (Cri.) No.7284/2017 whereby the Apex
Court has held as under:-
In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 of
IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission
of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.07.18
18:48:50 IST
by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the
accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide
would not amount to an offence under Section 306 of IPC
[Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bangal (2010) 1 SCC 707].
Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to
do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by
his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased
was left with no option except to commit suicide [Chitresh kumar
Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16
SCC 605].
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and supported the
impugned order by submitting that the learned trial Court has not committed any
error in framing the charges against the petitioners. It is further submitted that
the petitioners have harassed the the deceased due to which, he has committed
suicide. Hence, the learned Court below has rightly framed the charges against
the petitioners.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the case of Rajesh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh passed in
CRR No.3155/2011 decided on 09.07.2019, this Court has observed in para
no.13, as under:-
13.............. "For framing charges under Section 306 of IPC
there has to be a mens rea to impel or incite the subject to commit
suicide. It is also requires an active or direct act, which lead the
deceased to commit suicide and this act mush push the deceased
Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
into such a position that he sees no option except to annihilate his
Date: 2022.07.18
18:48:50 IST
own life."
In the case in hand, there is nothing on record to show that the deceased
was being harassed directly either by the petitioners or by any other source to
impel the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing on record except the
omnibus allegations regarding abetment made in the suicide note written by the
deceased. Hence, in view of the settled law in the case of Rajesh (Supra), the
criminal revision is allowed.
Hence, the petitioners are discharged from the charges framed vide
impugned order dated 05.03.2021 passed in ST No.14/2021 by 2nd ASJ,
Mahidpur, District Ujjain.
With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed off.
Copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned for information.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA))
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
VerifiedDigitally
Digitally signed by
SAN AMIT KUMAR
Date: 2022.07.18
18:48:50 IST
