Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwandas @ Chintu Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2016
1 Cr.R. No.880/2016
(Bhagwandas @ Chintu Sahu and Others Vs. State of M.P.)
30/11/2016
Shri Sushil Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri R.K. Awasthy, learned Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
With the consent of parties, heard finally.
The present revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioners under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the
order dated 29/08/2016 passed by Sessions Judge, Datia in
S.T. No.200074/2016, whereby charges under Section 306/34
of IPC has been framed against the present petitioners.
Facts of the case in brief are that as per the prosecution
story, on dated 13/01/2016, complainant-Vijay Chahal s/o Harjeet Chahal has given marg intimation to the police station- Civil Lines, Datia to the effect that his nephew namely Sagar has committed suicide by shooting himself and leaving behind the dying declaration. During the course of marg inquiry, statements of witnesses have been recorded, wherein it has been surfaced that petitioners have abated the decased-Sagar to commit suicide, thereafter, an FIR vide Crime No.009/2016 has been registered against the present petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC.
According to counsel for the petitioners, the prosecution has falsely implicated the petitioners in the case and charges have been wrongly framed against them because the suicide note which is the basis for implicating the petitioners has not been filed by the prosecution alongwith the charge-sheet. Petitioners on the basis of final report submits that suicide note does not find place in the list of documents which have been annexed with the final report/charge-sheet, therefore, petitioners cannot be implicated and charged for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC.
Another arguments of the counsel for the petitioners is that no evidence has figured in the charge-sheet besides suicide note to implicate the petitioners. Only on the basis of 2 Cr.R. No.880/2016 (Bhagwandas @ Chintu Sahu and Others Vs. State of M.P.) statement of deceased maternal uncle, they have falsely framed into the case.
He relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. 2002 SCC (Cr.) 1141 and followed by this Court in the matter of Karan Jatiya Vs. State of M.P., 2016 (1) CDHC 120 (MP).
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State on the basis of case diary and challan paper submits that the reference of suicide note in case diary is figured alongwith one dot pen at the place of suicide and original suicide note has been sent for hand writing expert, therefore, the same has not been filed at this stage.
Further submission of the counsel for respondent/State is that the statement of Vijay Chahal bears the reference of suicide note. The prosecution has also filed a photocopy of the suicide note alongwith list of documents. He further submitted that perusal of suicide note reveals that the deceased has committed suicide because of pressure exerted by the petitioners upon him. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The statement of Vijay Chahal indicates that the suicide note has been prepared by the deceased in which specific names of present petitioners finds place. The charges framed against the petitioners also indicates that the deceased has been harassed either on 13/01/2016 or prior to the date, therefore, the scope of abatement dates back to 13/01/2016 and prior to that also.
The final report submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court contains the reference of suicide note as well as other physical and documentary evidence.
Abatement involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of things 3 Cr.R. No.880/2016 (Bhagwandas @ Chintu Sahu and Others Vs. State of M.P.) without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or add insult for committing suicide. Abatement need not necessarily be any physical or an overt act. It has more mental in nature and has very subtle ramifications. A sensitive person may take his/her insult or harassment in a very different manner.
Ingredients as referred in Section 107 of IPC sufficiently encompasses the case of the petitioners at least for framing of charges, as it sufficiently indicates the instigation generated through the incident because of the conduct of the petitioners which led to suicide committed by the deceased.
The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable on facts. Here the reference of mental disturbance of deceased due to some land deal etc. has surfaced during investigation/suicide note.
At this stage, the scope of revision is not such wide enough to appreciate the controversy, which is like in the trial.
Even otherwise, the statements of Vijay Chahal i.e., maternal uncle of the deceased refers the suicide note, wherein names of the present petitioners specifically finds place. The petitioners have never challenged their relationship with the deceased.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the scope of revisional jurisdiction, no case for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.
(Anand Pathak) Judge vc