Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bindu Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2012
1 Criminal Rev No.604/2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
(SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI M.A. SIDDIQUI, J)
Criminal Rev No.604/2012
Bindu Patel APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT
Shri Ramesh Kumar , Advocate for applicant.
Shri Akshya Namdeo P.L.. for respondent/State.
Order Reserved on 10.07.2012
Order Passed on 13.07.2012
ORDER
This criminal revision u/s 397(2)/401/482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (hereinafter referred to for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed in order to quash the order dated 6.3.2012 passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.201/2010 (State of M.P. v. Abid and 10 others) by which learned trial Court has framed the charge u/s 306 of IPC against the applicant.
2. undisputed fact of the case is that Mahendra Kumar Patel (since deceased) was husband of petitioner/applicant. Due to dispute between them so Mahendra Kumar Patel committed suicide on 27.1.2009 by consuming some poisonous substance, while getting disturbed by her taunts and bad activities. On intimation to police, PS Gohalpur (Jabalpur) has registered Marg intimation and inquest was made. Post mortem of the dead body was performed and viscera was preserved. From the report of FSL poisonous substance was found. Suicidal note was also found and it was examined by expert and it was found to be of 2 Criminal Rev No.604/2012 deceased. From the suicidal note it is revealed that wife of petitioner/applicant was having illicit relations with one Abid and another man Arvind to whom she was keeping relations even after given repeated warning and advice; and she was also not giving lift to deceased. Once when she was pregnant she aborted her pregnancy without consent of her husband. She had not good relations with her husband and in-laws i.e. family members of husband. She also made a complaint in Vidhik Pariwar Paramars Kendra. She did not want to live with husband.
3. I have heard both the sides and perused copy of impugned order presented by learned counsel for the applicant and documents on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no prima facie case u/s 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant as there is no instigation. He placed reliance on Madholal and ors. Vs. State of M.P. I.L.R. [2008] M.P.1282, Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002 AIR SCW 2035) M.P., Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 (SC), Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. 2009 Cri.L.J.822 (SC),Jugal Kishore v. State of M.P. 2005(1) Crimes 117 MP, M. Mohan v. State, 2011 Cri.L.J.1900 (SC)Dr. Mangleshwar Singh v. State of M.P. 2002(4) M.P.H.T. 140 and submitted that for the offence u/s 306 IPC, abetment of suicide- Prerequisite for conviction- Accused must have done some positive act to instigate or aid in committing suicide- He must have requisite mens rea. Deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in joint family-- No allegation, however, found to be made against appellants- Appellants held, were not even remotely connected with offence and has submitted that where suicide note left by deceased showing that he was in great stress and depression. Abetment involves a mental process or instigation a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. The intention of the Legislature is clear that in order to convict a person u/s 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the 3 Criminal Rev No.604/2012 deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she commits suicide. He has also submitted that deceased committed suicide and wrote suicide note- Acts attributed to accused did not prima facie constitute abetment- Accused had not intentionally aided or instigated deceased to end his life. Framing of charge was miscarriage of justice. He has also submitted that in the absence of specific material to show that the acts of the accused are covered under the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC, charge u/s 306 IPC can not endure. The act of the accused prima facie do not appear to constitute abetment as defined under section 107 IPC. There is no material to show that he has "intentionally' aided or instigated the deceased to end his life. Thus framing of charge u/s 306, IPC has led to miscarriage of justice. In suicide note left by deceased showing that he was in great stress and depression. Statement by his wife that he was frustrated man and was in habit of drinking was held charge-sheet framed u/s 306 against accused was liable to be quashed as ingredients of abetment were totally absent held in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (Supra).
5. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer appearing for State opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and has submitted that offence u/s 306 of IPC is prima facie made out from perusal of the suicidal note and suicidal note is fully creditable in which it has been very much mentioned the clear cut case against the applicant she is responsible for the death of deceased. He was not heavy drinker. He also submitted that it also revealed that 47 calls were made from Cell Phone of co-accused Abid to applicant in evening on which poisonous substance was consumed by deceased so applicant was teasing deceased which amounts to cruelty with deceased husband. From the perusal of suicidal note it is very much clear that specific allegations are there and by keeping illicit relations with other persons by the wife not only with one person but more than one person even after restraining her to keep illicit relations and she denied. False allegations were levelled not against deceased but to the family 4 Criminal Rev No.604/2012 members and Pariwar Paramars Kendra so from suicidal note it is clear that applicant instigated deceased to commit suicide hence means rea is presence to concomitant of 'instigation', would show that suicide was direct result of acts of applicant. Consequently deceased committed suicide and above placed reliance on the authorities have no application in the case in hand.
6. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State has submitted that those authorities referred by learned counsel for the applicant have no application to the present case. Each case has to decide on its own facts and circumstances and in this case there is suicidal note in which acts of applicant is mentioned .
7. It is also a settled cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that even in case of strong suspicion charges should have been framed irrespective of the result whether it resulted into conviction or not.
8. It is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction can not embark upon reappreciation of evidence unless the finding of fact is on the face of it, illegal or perverse.
9. It is also a cardinal principle of law that in a revision the revisional court will not interfere with the order of the court below unless there is some compelling reason for doing so, such as, where the judgment or order of the court below is vitiated by perversity or gross illegality. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality nor there is any error of jurisdiction.
10. In the result, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or perversity or not committed any error in framing the charge u/s 306 IPC against the applicant as there is prima facie case against her/applicant. This petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No interference is called for.
Petition stands disposed of.
(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE Ag/ 5 Criminal Rev No.604/2012