Madhya Pradesh High Court
Monu @ Ravi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR.
SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice D.K.Paliwal
Criminal Revision No.323 of 2014
Shri Monu @ Ravi.
vs.
State of M.P.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for
the petitioner.
Ms. Nutan Saxena, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( /09/2014) This revision petition has been preferred under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.4.2014 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.174/2014, whereby the charge under section 306 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 13.8.2013 the complainant Makkhan Singh Kushwaha informed that the Karishma who is daughter of his daughter Somvati committed suicide by hanging herself. The information was given by Makkhan Singh at Police Station Madhav Ganj, upon which a Marg Intimation No.39/2013 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. During enquiry, it was found that prior to the incident, the deceased has lodged a report against the petitioner for committing rape upon her. During the enquiry, the complaint was submitted by the mother of the deceased to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior alleging that the petitioner has committed rape upon the deceased and thereafter Sarman, Jagan, Poonam and Naval Phoolwale used to say that nothing would happen to the petitioner and they would save him on the strength of money. Due to this, the deceased was afraid and she used to say that they would kill her and also asked her mother not to proceed against them, otherwise they would also kill her and due to the aforesaid, her daughter has committed suicide. On enquiry it was found that Sarman, Jagan, Poonam and Naval Phoolwale used to compel the complainant to compromise and they also used to harass the deceased, and on account of it deceased had committed suicide. Thereafter the Crime No.669/2013 under Sections 306/34 of IPC has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.
3. After investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner along with Naval. The case was committed for the trial to the Sessions Judge, Gwalior which has been made over to IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior for trial. By the impugned order dated 23.4.2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior has framed the charges under section 306 of IPC. Being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.4.2014 is illegal and against the settled principles of law. There is no prima facie evidence regarding abetment against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State supported the impugned order dated 23.4.2014 and contended that from the material collected during the investigation prima facie the charge under section 306 of IPC is made out, hence, learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in framing the charge under section 306 of IPC against the petitioner.
6. In view of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the case diary and challan papers.
7. It is not disputed that Karisma has committed suicide on 13.8.2013, further it has also not disputed that prior to commission of suicide a report was lodged against the petitioner, who is son of Sarman Singh, committing rape on the deceased and it is also not disputed that no suicide note has been recovered.
8. On perusal of the Marg Intimation lodged by the father of the deceased, it appears that no reason has been mentioned why the deceased has committed suicide. During enquiry of Marg Intimation the statements of father of the deceased Preetam Singh, mother of the deceased Somvati, sister of the deceased Ku. Anjali, father's sister of the deceased Smt. Kishan, maternal grand-father Makkhan Singh and two other witnesses have been recorded on 19.8.2013, 20.8.2013 and 28.8.2013. All the witnesses in their statements have stated that they don't know why deceased has hanged herself. The mother of the deceased has submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 27.11.2013 in which for the first time omnibus allegation were made against the petitioner. Co-accused used to say that nothing would happen to Monu, they would save him on the strength of money and deceased was afraid that the petitioner would get her killed.
9. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to refer the provision to section 306 of IPC which reads as under:-
"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."
Bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (I) that, a person committed suicide, and (ii) such suicide was abetted by the accused.
10. The word "abetment" has been defined under section 107 of the IPC which reads thus:
"Section 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 lakes 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."
The aforesaid provision makes it clear that the person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly instigates any person to do that thing. To constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
11. In the instant case, considering the statement of witnesses recorded during Marg enquiry, it is crystal clear that there was no allegation whatsoever against the petitioner. For the first time in the complaint lodged by the mother of the deceased after four to five days the allegation with regard to threatening by the petitioner was made. It is pertinent to mention here that when the deceased committed suicide the petitioner was in jail. If for the sake of arguments it is presumed that such threat was given by the petitioner, even then it does not amount to an "instigation" under section 107 of IPC. It is significant to note that as per the prosecution rape has been committed by the petitioner about five months ago from 13.08.2013.
12. At the stage of framing of the charge, the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence, which the prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court at the stage of framing of charge 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 charge can be framed.
13. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayana Rao, 2012 AIR SCW 5139, the Apex Court considered the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P.C. and held that for framing of charge, a roving enquiry in pros and cons of matter and weighing of evidence as is done in trial is not permissible at this stage. The charge has to be framed if Court feels that there is strong suspicion that accused has committed offence. Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.
14. From the material available on record prima facie there is no material to presume that the petitioner has committed offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. In my considered opinion, the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in framing the charge under section 306 of IPC against the present petitioner. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed.
15. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.4.2014 of learned Trial Court framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 of IPC is set aside and said charge is quashed. The petitioner is accordingly discharged from the offence.
16. With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(D.K.Paliwal) Judge bj/-