Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 January, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (1 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
[2025:RJ-JD:2617]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1155/2023
Mangal Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Mach
Gaon, P.s. Mt. Abu, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Lt. Sh. Kalu Ram Meghwal, Aged
About 25 Years, Vill. Lunol, Teh. Reodar, P.s. Anadra,
Dist. Sirohi
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Om Prakash Choudhary
Mr. Rajesh Shah, for respondent no.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Judgment
Order Reserved on : 14/01/2025
Date of pronouncement: 24/01/2025
REPORTABLE
Instant criminal revision petition has been filed under
Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C against the judgment and order dated
14.08.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sirohi in Sessions Case No.
07/2023 whereby, the learned Judge ordered to frame charges
against the petitioner for offences under Sections 306 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by
the complainant Mukesh Kumar before the SHO, P.S Mount Abu
stating therein that his brother Bhartendra Singh had started
(Downloaded on 28/01/2025 at 10:41:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (2 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
business of renting bikes similar to accused petitioner. It was
alleged that the accused petitioner started harassing and abusing
his brother due to which his brother committed suicide on
02.12.2022.
On this report, the police registered a case and started
investigation. After due investigation, the police filed chargesheet
against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306
IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Corruption Act) Cases, Sirohi
whereby, arguments on the charge were heard. Thereafter, the
learned Special Judge ordered to frame charges against the
petitioner for offences under Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, this present
revision petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that
no offence under Sections 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the
petitioner as there is no evidence pointing out complicity of the
petitioner in commission of offence. It is argued that the accused
and deceased shared good relationship. In fact, the deceased was
in relationship with one girl for last three years but she married to
some other person, due to which the deceased went into
depression and committed suicide. The relationship between the
deceased and girl is fortified from the whatsapp chats between
them, therefore, the petitioner is nowhere related to the death of
Bharat Kumar and it cannot be said that the petitioner instigated
or aided the commission of suicide. Therefore, the trial court has
committed an error in framing charge for offence under Sections
(Downloaded on 28/01/2025 at 10:41:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (3 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act. Learned counsel placed reliance on recent judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prakash & Ors Vs. State of
Maharashtra (SLP Crl. No. 1073/2023) decided on 20.12.2024,
Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 7 Supreme
213 and judgments of this Court in the case of Smt. Sangita Vs.
State (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1104/2023 decided on
15.01.2024, Lata Vs. State of Raj & Ors reported in 2022 4 CrlLR
1877 and Pappu Kanwar Vs. State of Raj reported in 2020 2 RLW
(Raj) 1481.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the respondent argued that a video clip was recovered from the
mobile of the deceased, in which the deceased categorically stated
that since petitioner Mangal Singh tortured him, therefore, he is
committing suicide. Further it is settled proposition of law that at
the stage of framing of charge, the scope of powers conferred
under Section 397 Cr.P.C is very limited. Therefore, the trial court
has not committed any error in framing charge for offence under
Sections 306 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of FIR and documents on record, the
omnibus allegation against the present petitioner is that he
harassed and tortured the deceased Bharat Kumar, due to which
he committed suicide. At this stage, it is relevant to refer Section
306 IPC reads as under :--
(Downloaded on 28/01/2025 at 10:41:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (4 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
"306. Abetment of suicide.--If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine."
For commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC,
abetment is the necessary thing, which has been defined in
Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC, reads as under:--
"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.
Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation,
or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound
to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to
cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the
commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act"
When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be: (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in
close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear
mens rea to abet the commission of suicide.
The core element of Section 306 of IPC is the intentional
abetment of suicide. Thus, for framing a charge for the offence
(Downloaded on 28/01/2025 at 10:41:31 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (5 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
under section 306 IPC, the learned court below is to consider
whether the abettor intentionally instigated or aided the
commission of the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment or
strained relationships do not suffice to establish abetment. In case
of Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra and
Another Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed as under:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or
intentional aid to 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these
three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused
must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or
engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the
person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act)
intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
...
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence
recorded by the courts below and the legal position
established through statutory and judicial
pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no
proximate link between the marital dispute in the
marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission
of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any
evidence to substantiate the allegations against the
appellant. The appellant has not played any active role
or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the
deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of
the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the
deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during
investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the
appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no
allegation against the appellant of suggesting the
deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (6 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
commission of suicide by her husband."
A plethora of Apex Court decisions have crystallized the law
of abetment. Abetment involves the mental process of instigating
or intentionally aiding another person to do a particular thing. To
bring a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, the act of abetment
would require the positive act of instigation or intentionally aiding.
Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to
abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a
position he/ she would have no other option but to commit
suicide.
As per the prosecution's own case, the petitioner allegedly
harassed the deceased, but no evidence in the audio/video
recordings or any other material on record showing that the
petitioner explicitly provoked, goaded, or instigated the deceased
to commit suicide. The material on record reflects that allegedly,
the petitioner insisted the deceased to repay the money. However,
the reasoning for the petitioner's actions appears to stem from a
financial dispute rather than an intention to drive the deceased to
suicide. The primary interest of the petitioner appears to be
retrieving money, not forcing the deceased to take his life.
Financial disagreements alone do not amount to abetment unless
there is clear evidence that the actions of the accused were
intended to provoke the victim to commit suicide. The alleged
conduct does not fall within the ambit of "incitement" or
"instigation". In the case of suicide, a mere allegation of
harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there be such an action on the part of the accused that
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (7 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
compels the person to commit suicide and such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.
Moreover, from the perusal of the statement of witnesses, it
has come on record that the deceased was experiencing
significant emotional distress due to a failed relationship. He had
been in a relationship for three years, but the girl he was involved
with married someone else. This development caused the
deceased to fall into a state of depression. In fact, witnesses
Ashok Kumar S/o Babuji, Suresh Koli S/o Mohan lal, and Raju
Ram S/o Babuji in their police statement have stated that they
never heard of any dispute between petitioner Mangal Singh and
deceased Bharat Kumar, on the contrary, they had cordial
relations. If there was no ongoing conflict or animosity between
the accused and the deceased, it is difficult to establish that the
petitioner's actions could have contributed to or triggered the
suicide. A lack of a strained relationship undermines the theory
that the action of accused petitioner were responsible for driving
the deceased to take such an extreme step.
The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long
settled was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab Reported in 1 (2004) 13
SCC 129 as follows in paras 12 and 13:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating
a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a
thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing
of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (8 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
before a person can be said to be abetting the
commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has
observed that the courts should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and
the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of
finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had
in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.
If it transpires to the court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite common to
the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court
should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide
should be found guilty."
Further in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.,
Reported in 2 (2007) 10 SCC 797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
gave a clear exposition of Section 107 IPC when it observed as
follows in para 6:
"6. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence
provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing
when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or
(2) engages with one or more other persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3)
intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of
that thing. These things are essential to complete
abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally
means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by
persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by
instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (9 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides
that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of
abetment and there is no provision for the punishment
of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished
with the punishment provided for the original offence.
"Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence
abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is normally
linked with the proved offence."
In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West
Bengal Reported in 2009 7 Supreme 289, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that:-
"15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view
that before holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously
examine the facts and circumstances of the case and
also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to
find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out
to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without their being any
positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview 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 by
doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (10 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
with the said offence must be proved and established
by the prosecution before he could be convicted under
Section 306 IPC.
17. The expression 'abetment' has been defined under
Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the commission of
suicide when a person instigates any person to do that
thing as stated in clause firstly or to do anything as
stated in clauses secondly or thirdly of Section 107 IPC.
Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is
committed pursuant to and in consequence of
abetment then the offender is to be punished with the
punishment provided for the original offence.
18. Learned counsel for the respondent-State,
however, clearly stated before us that it would be a
case where clause thirdly' of Section 107 IPC only
would be attracted. According to him, a case of
abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under
Section 107 IPC."
The scope and ambit of Section 107 of IPC and its co-relation
with Section 306 of IPC has been discussed repeatedly by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and Co-ordinate Bench of different High
Courts. In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan
and another Reported in (2010) 12 SCC 190, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as under:-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused
to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and
the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that
in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there
has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (11 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that
act must have been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed suicide."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno
and Ors. vs. The Inspector of Police Reported in AIR 2022 SC
4994 observed as under :-
"This Court has time and again reiterated that before
convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal
Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts
and circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the
victim had left the victim with no other alternative but
to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind
that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there
must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement
to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation
of harassment without their being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the
Accused which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian
Penal Code is not sustainable."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal
Vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023)
dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under :-
"9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in
Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question
is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to
commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to
cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the
accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (12 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such
intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such
a position under which he or she has no choice but to
commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close
proximity to the act of committing suicide."
Recently, in the case of Prakash and Others v. The
State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INSC
1020 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-
first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the
abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order
to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must
necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some
direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or
involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in
Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.
14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well
established. To attract the offence of abetment to
suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or
indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by
the accused, which must be in close proximity to the
commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation
or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide and should put the victim in such
a position that he/she would have no other option but to
commit suicide.
...
20. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do "an act". It has been held that in order
to satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (13 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence, however,
a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must
be capable of being spelt out. Applying the law to the
facts of the case, this Court went on to hold that a word
uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.
...
22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that
in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a
proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It has been held that since the
cause of suicide particularly in the context of the offence
of abetment of suicide involves multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behaviour, the court would
be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s)
of incitement to the commission of suicide. This Court
further observed that a mere allegation of harassment
of the deceased by another person would not suffice
unless there is such action on the part of the accused
which compels the person to commit suicide. This Court
also emphasised that such an offending action ought to
be proximate to the time of occurrence. It was further
clarified that the question of mens rea on the part of the
accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It
was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of
such nature where the accused intended nothing more
than harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular
case may fall short of the offence of abetment of
suicide, however, if the accused kept on irritating or
annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the
deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case
may be that of abetment of suicide. This Court held that
owing to the fact that the human mind could be affected
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (14 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
and could react in myriad ways and that similar actions
are dealt with differently by different persons, each case
is required to be dealt with its own facts and
circumstances.
...
26. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
instigation or incitement on the part of the accused person
is the gravamen of the offence of abetment to suicide.
However, it has been clarified on many occasions that in
order to link the act of instigation to the act of suicide, the
two occurrences must be in close proximity to each other
so as to form a nexus or a chain, with the act of suicide
by the deceased being a direct result of the act of
instigation by the accused person.
27. This Court in the case of Mohit Singhal (supra)
reiterated that the act of instigation must be of such
intensity and in such close proximity that it intends to
push the deceased to such a position under which the
person has no choice but to commit suicide. This Court
held that the incident which had allegedly driven the
deceased to commit suicide had occurred two weeks prior
and even the suicide note had been written three days
prior to the date on which the deceased committed suicide
and further, there was no allegation that any act had been
done by the accused-appellant therein in close proximity
to the date of suicide. This Court observed as follows:
"11.In the present case, taking the complaint of the
third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as
correct, it is impossible to conclude that the appellants
instigated the deceased to commit suicide by
demanding the payment of the amount borrowed by the
third respondent from her husband by using abusive
language and by assaulting him by a belt for that
purpose. The said incident allegedly happened more
than two weeks before the date of suicide. There is no
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (15 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
allegation that any act was done by the appellants in
close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch of
imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can
amount to instigation to commit suicide. The deceased
has blamed the third respondent for landing in trouble
due to her bad habits.
12. Therefore, in our considered view, the offence
punishable under Section 306IPC was not made out
against the appellants. Therefore, the continuation of
their prosecution will be nothing but an abuse of the
process of law."
(emphasis supplied)
28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of
Haryana, observed as follows:-
"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State [Mariano
Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the abovereferred
decisions rendered in context of culpability under
Section 306IPC observed as under : (SCC para 45)
"45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action proximate to
the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which
led or compelled the person to commit suicide,
conviction in terms of Section 306IPC is not
sustainable."
Recently, in the case Lamxi Das vs The State of West
Bengal & Ors. Reported in 2025 INSC 86 the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed that:-
"14. It is discerned from the record that the Appellant
along with her family did not attempt to put any pressure
on the deceased to end the relationship between her and
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (16 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
Babu Das. In fact, it was the deceased's family that was
unhappy with the relationship. Even if the Appellant
expressed her disapproval towards the marriage of Babu
Das and the deceased, it does not rise to the level of
direct or indirect instigation of abetting suicide. Further, a
remark such as asking the deceased to not be alive if she
cannot live without marrying her lover will also not gain
the status of abetment. There needs to be a positive act
that creates an environment where the deceased is
pushed to an edge in order to sustain the charge of
Section 306 IPC."
Upon a perusal of several aforementioned judicial
pronouncements, we find ourselves unable to agree with the trial
Court. Even if all evidence on record, including the chargesheet
and the witness statements, are taken to be correct, there is not
an iota of evidence against the petitioner. There is no allegation
against the petitioner of a nature that the deceased was left with
no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing
suicide. The prosecution must show that the accused had a motive
to abet the suicide. If no plausible motive is established, and the
relationship between the accused and the deceased does not
suggest any ill-willed intent, the charge could be set aside. If
there is no proof of any active role played by the accused in the
events leading up to the suicide, such as abusive behaviour or
threats, the Court may set aside the charge. Simple negligence or
even an argument that does not directly lead to the suicide would
not be sufficient to prove abetment.
In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in
the FIR and statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even
then it cannot be said that petitioner has instigated the deceased
to commit suicide. What is strange is that even the court below
[2025:RJ-JD:2617] (17 of 17) [CRLR-1155/2023]
while passing the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 has itself
observed that the deceased was having love affair with one girl
named Pooja due to which he committed suicide. Despite this, the
court below proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner for
offences under Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act which is ex facie erroneous.
In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court
has committed an error in framing charge for offences under
Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act against the petitioner.
Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the
impugned order dated 14.08.2023 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sirohi in
Sessions Case No. 07/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
petitioner is discharged from the said offences.
The stay petition also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
105-BJSH/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
