Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jay Pal Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Yadav
Bench: Sunita Yadav
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
ON THE 22 nd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1080 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. JAY PAL YADAV S/O SHRI GAJRAJ YADAV, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE BIJRAUNI THANA
INDAAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. INDRA BHAN YADAV S/O SHRI RAGHUVEER
SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, VILLAGE
BIJRAUNI THANA INDAAR DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY MR. ROMESH PRATAP SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH INCHARGE POLICE
STATION THROUGH POLICE STATION INDAAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY MR. GIRRAJ SONI - PANEL LAWYER)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present revision is filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrPC challenging the
order dated 09.1.2023 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Shivpuri in SC ATR
No.529/2022, whereby charge under Sections 294, 306 and 34 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act has been framed against the petitioners - accused persons.
The facts in brief to decide the present revision are that on 22.7.2022,
Police got an information that some person has committed suicide in Village
Bijroni. When police reached on the spot, body of deceased Kheru @
Kanhaiyalal was found hanging from the tree. Thereafter, Merg No. 0/22 under
Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and investigation was initiated. During
investigation, statements of Sunil Jatav and Ajab Singh Jatav, sons of the
deceased, and Smt. Nathiyabai Jatav, wife of the deceased were recorded in
which allegations were levelled that present petitioners hurled caste related abuse
to the deceased due to which he committed suicide. On the basis of
investigation, FIR bearing Crime No. 168/2022 for offence under Section 306
of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered against the petitioners /
accused persons and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under
aforesaid sections.
The trial Court after hearing the parties framed charge under Sections 294,
306 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioners against which present
revision has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that prima facie there is no
evidence on record to show that the petitioners abused the deceased related to
his caste. According to the statements of the family members of the deceased
itself, petitioners were merely present on the spot. Hence, prayed that the
impugned order framing charges against the petitioners for offence under
Sections 294, 306 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Crime No. 168/2022 be set
aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Arjunan vs.
State Rep. By Its Inspector of Police; Criminal Appeal No. 1550 of 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.382 of 2016) decided on 04.12.2018.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the
prayer of the petitioners and argued that on the basis of FIR as well as
statements of the son of the deceased and other witnesses there are sufficient
ground for framing charges. Since the ingredients of Sections 294, 306 and 34
of IPC and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act are available, therefore, learned trial Court has not erred in
framing charges under these offences. Therefore, there is no ground to quash
the charges framed against the petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available
record.
The perusal of record reveals that there is specific allegation against the
petitioners in the FIR that, soon before the suicide by the deceased, they hurled
caste related abuses to the deceased and also harassed him. Thereafter, the
deceased committed suicide. Prosecution witnesses have also supported the
case of the prosecution about instigation for suicide. Under these
circumstances, there is prima facie evidence available against the present
petitioners/accused persons for framing of charges.
It is trite law that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to see
whether the facts alleged and sought to be proved by the prosecution prima
facie disclose the commission of offence on general consideration of the
materials placed before him by the investigating police officer.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj; (1997)
4 SCC 393, the Apex Court held that at Section 227 and 228 stage, the Court is
required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. Therefore, the
case law of M. Arjunan (supra) does not help him at this stage.
In view of the above settled position of law, in this case, there is prima
facie material available on record to show the involvement of present petitioners
/ accused in the crime under Sections 294, 306 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)
(S) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Therefore, learned trial Court has not erred in framing the charges under the
aforesaid sections against the petitioners.
Consequently, present revision sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE
AKS
