Madhya Pradesh High Court
Durgesh @ Durgesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 May, 2023
Author: Deepak Kumar Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
ON THE 9 th OF MAY, 2023
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 669 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. DURGESH @ DURGESH S/O SHRI KARAN SINGH
LODHI VILL. KARAIKHEDA THASIL SIRONJ DIST.
VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KAVITA LODHI S/O SHIVCHARAN LODHI VILL.
KARAIKHEDA TEH. SIRONJ DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SAMEER KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE
POLICE STATION PATHARIYA DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JAGBHAN SINGH S/O DESHRAJ SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 53 YEARS, JUGPURA NEHRU NAGAR
LALITPUR (UTTAR PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioners filed this criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2022 passed in Sessions Trial
No.37/2021 by Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District
Vidisha by which the trial Court has framed the charges under Sections 306/34
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 5/10/2023
9:50:03 AM
and 302/34 of IPC against the petitioners.
2. In brief facts of the case are that on 14.05.2021, the victim lodged the
report alleging that her daughter deceased Sangita has committed suicide in her
matrimonial house. On 23.04.2021, marg intimation under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. was lodged, in which it is mentioned that at about 11-12 PM in the
night, when his son Durgesh (husband of the deceased) daughter in law had
their food and thereafter, went to sleep. Since Durgesh was having fever,
therefore, both the children of Durgesh were sleeping with their grandfather
namely Karan Singh. When in the morning, the children went inside the room,
they found that deceased Sangita was not in the room. Thereafter, when they
went on their roof of their house, they found that Sangita is hanging with the
help of saree. Thereafter, the victime was taken to her room and further the
parents of the deceased were informed. Thereafter, marg was recorded and
dead body panchnama was prepared. During dead body panchnama, father of
the deceased, brother and other relative were present. Dead body was sent for
post mortem and as per post mortem report, deceased died due to asphyxia as
a result of hanging. During marg inquiry, statements of maternal side of the
deceased were recorded. Marriage of the deceased was solemnized with
present petitioner No.1 in 2009. Petitioner No.1 was having illicit relationship
with Petitioner No.2 (Bhabhi of the deceased) which came into knowledge of
the deceased. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 used to do marrpeet with deceased.
Thereby, deceased committed suicide by hanging. Afterwards, FIR bearing
crime No.47/2021 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station
Pathariya, District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 34 of
IPC. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that there is no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 5/10/2023
9:50:03 AM
evidence in the present case of abetment of suicide as defined in Section 107 of
IPC. Relying upon the judgment passed in the case of K.V. Prakash Babu vs.
State of Karnataka, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 176 in which Apex Court
has held that -:
" I t is clarified that if husband gets involved in an
extra-marital affair, that may not in all circumstances
invite conviction under Section 498-A IPC or Section
306 IPC, but definitely that can be a ground for
divorce or other reliefs in a matrimonial dispute
under other enactments".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that case of the
prosecution does not come within the purview of Section 107 of IPC because
only on the ground of illicit relationship it cannot be assumed that it comes in
the definition of abetment. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the cases of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujrat,
reported in 2013 (10) SCC 48 and Amalendu Pal v. State of West
Bengal, reported in 2010 (1) SCC 707. It is further submitted by counsel for
the petitioners that there is no evidence in record except the statements of father
of the deceased that there was illicit relationship between petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.2. Marriage of the deceased was solemnized more than 10 years
back, but no suit for divorce has been filed by the deceased. Beside this, father
of the deceased was present when dead body panchnama of deceased was
prepared, on that he had not made any allegation against the petitioners. As far
as Section 302 is concerned, there is no evidence in alternate to make charge
against the petitioners.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/state has
vehemently opposed the prayer on the ground that the offences which was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 5/10/2023
9:50:03 AM
registered against the petitioner is against the society and the said offences are
not compoundable.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The parameters of 'abetment' have been stated in Section 107 of
the IPC, which defines 'abetment of a thing' as follows :-
"107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing
of a thing, who - First- Instigates any person to do
that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more
other person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an 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.
8. Thus, considering the totality of the facts & circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that prima facie there is no
material to show that petitioners in any manner have abetted the deceased to
commit suicide. Accordingly, order dated 20.01.2022 passed by learned
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District- Vidisha is hereby set-aside
and framing charges against the petitioners under Sections 306/34 of IPC is
quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners and petitioners are discharged.
9. The petition stands allowed in aforesaid terms.
(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL)
JUDGE
Vijay
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI
Signing time: 5/10/2023
9:50:03 AM
