Radhavallabh Singi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3293 MP

                                                                                 1
                                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
                                                                             BEFORE
                                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                                        ON THE 9th OF MARCH, 2022

                                                                CRIMINAL REVISION No. 983 of 2020

                                                     Between:-
                                            1.       RADHAVALLABH SINGI S/O SHRI JUGAL KISHORE
                                                     SINGI , AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                                     RETIRED 210, KARMCHARI COLONY, P.S.
                                                     KOTWALI DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                            2.       MOHANSINGH RAJPUT S/O LATE SHRI CHANDER
                                                     SINGH RAJPUT , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
                                                     OCCUPATION:     AGRICULTURIST    VILLAGE
                                                     CHANDANA, TEHSIL AND DIST DEWAS AT
                                                     PRESENT 17, KUBER NAGAR DEWAS DIST DEWAS
                                                     (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                                 .....PETITIONER
                                                     (BY SHRI VIVEK SINGH, ADVOCATE)

                                                     AND

                                                     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                                     HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH P.S. CIVIL LINES,
                                                     DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
                                                     (BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, GA FOR STATE)

                                                  This revision coming on for ADMISSION this day, the court passed the

                                            following:
                                                                                  ORDER

Present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2020 passed in ST No.31/2020 by Second ASJ, District Dewas whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioners under Section 306 and 120-B of IPC.

According to the prosecution story, on 19.12.2016, one Kailash Prasad Yadav resident of District Dewas has committed suicide by self immolation. The allegations against the petitioner are that the deceased had borrowed huge amount from various persons including the present petitioners. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was feeling harassed because of the regular demands made by the petitioners and other persons with regard to repayment of loan Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR

amount/borrowed amount due to which he has committed suicide. Thereafter, after Date: 2022.03.16 16:47:41 IST

the detailed enquiry, the petitioners were implicated in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order 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 the concocted story. It is also submitted that the petitioners were implicated only on the basis of their names mentioned in a diary which has been recovered from house of the deceased in which he used to write the entries of the amount borrowed from many persons. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence of harassment or causing abetment to the deceased. Even dying declaration does not speak about the present petitioners and the deceased does not speak anything about the present petitioners in his dying declaration 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 applicant 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 petitioner further placed reliance over the judgments passed by apex Court in the case of S.S. Chena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190, Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of A.P. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750.

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. The deceased has clearly mentioned their names in the dying declaration that they alongwith other persons Signature Not VerifiedDigitally signed by SAN AMIT KUMAR have harassed the deceased due to non-payment of amount. In their statements Date: 2022.03.16 16:47:41 IST

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., wife and sister of the deceased have

leveled specific allegations against the petitioners that they 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 into such a position that he sees no option except to annihilate his own life."

In the case in hand, except the diary which was being maintained by the deceased, 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. Even, the statements of the witnesses i.e. wife and daughter of the deceased has also not stated anything against the petitioners except the omnibus allegations as reflecting in the diary or dying declaration of the deceased. Hence, in view of the settled law in the case of Rajesh (Supra), the criminal revision is allowed.

Hence, the charges framed against the petitioners vide dated 04.02.2020 passed in ST No.31/2020 by Second ASJ, District Dewas under Section 306 and 120-B of IPC., are hereby quashed.

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: 2022.03.16 16:47:41 IST