Naresh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2017

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Naresh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 January, 2017

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2014 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Sessions Trial No.216/2014, whereby the trial court has framed charge against the applicant for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code ( in short 'IPC').

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the applicant was the accused of committing rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC on the prosecutrix and criminal proceeding was pending against the applicant in this respect since 07.02.2014. On 08.05.2014, the prosecutrix died. Her death was unnatural and the police was intimated accordingly. The police registered inquest No.37/2014 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.. During the course of investigation and from the material which was collected from the place of incident, the police found out -( 2 )- Cr.R.No.833/2014 that the prosecutrix had committed suicide by hanging herself and while recording the statements of the relatives of the deceased, the story which came out is that on 20.11.2013 the applicant committed rape on the deceased and once criminal proceedings in this respect being started against the applicant, the applicant started coercing and pressurizing the deceased as well as her relatives for taking money and entering into a compromise with respect to the pending criminal proceedings. Aggrieved by this pressure and getting a bad name for herself, the deceased died by hanging herself. Thus, after having enough evidence against the applicant, a charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna.

3. The offence sought to be charged against the accused persons was triable by Sessions Court. Accordingly, the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. The trial Court vide order dated 18.09.2015 framed charge against the accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 120B of IPC. The applicant has filed this revision application on the ground that the ingredients of offence charged against the present applicant are not available and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that a prmia facie case against the applicant has been made out and the applicant can be in no manner connected to the facts of the present case. The deceased could have committed suicide out of her own reason or due to some -( 3 )- Cr.R.No.833/2014 different reason and there is no suicide note found at the place of incidence that could implicate the present applicant. Number of judicial pronouncements were also discussed to emphasize the fact that an overt act is sine quo non for proceeding with the charge under Section 306 of IPC.

5. In the light of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed for quashing the impugned order and discharging him from the charge under Section 306 of IPC.

6. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/State supported the impugned order and submitted that the trial Court has considered the matter from all possible angles and there is enough preliminary evidence which suggests implication of the applicant in the incident. Therefore, the learned counsel for the non-applicant prayed for dismissal of the revision application.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions canvassed by both the parties and have perused the charge sheet filed on record. For the purpose of deciding the instant revision application, the only question arises for determination as to whether the charges against the present applicant are groundless ?

8. The answer to the aforesaid question is in negative. The material available clearly suggests that there are ample grounds for presuming that the applicant could have committed an offence and the trial must be proceeded to decide such question. The statements of all the relatives suggested that the accused persons were coercing them as well as the deceased to enter into a compromise. Aggrieved by such loss of reputation and -( 4 )- Cr.R.No.833/2014 pressure extended by applicant Naresh and co-accused Sunil, the deceased committed suicide. This clearly shows that the charges against the applicant are not groundless and the trial must proceed in this regard.

9. The question whether threatening or coercion or pressurizing which is alleged against the applicant, may be a reason for the deceased to commit suicide and whether the same could partake the character on 'abetement' which is an overt act, or also the question that needed to be answered.

10. The judgement rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 is of particular significance here, wherein it has been observed as under :-

"19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. 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 wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make 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 -( 5 )- Cr.R.No.833/2014 the manner noted above.

Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.

20. In the background of this legal position, we may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self."

25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, 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 or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for "presuming" that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya [(1990) 4 SCC 76:1991 SCC (Cri) 47] .)"

-( 6 )- Cr.R.No.833/2014

11. A plain reading of the above mentioned judgment clearly shows that continuous mental agony caused to the deceased by the applicant by pressurizing her to enter into a compromise and withdrawing from the criminal proceedings, for the reasons discussed herein above, constrained the deceased to commit suicide to get rid of such torture.

12. The Supreme Court in another judgment of significance, in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. Sate of A.P. reported in 2010 1 SCC 750, observed in the following manner :-

"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 requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

(emphasis supplied)

13. Based on the above mentioned reasons, the present revision application merits no consideration and accordingly, the same is dismissed being devoid of merits. It is needless to mention that the observation made herein above will not influence the trial Court in any manner while conducting the trial and coming to the conclusion. However, it will be appropriate for the trial Court to frame the charges against the applicant under Section 306 IPC instead of section 306/120-B IPC and proceed accordingly.

-( 7 )- Cr.R.No.833/2014

A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

(S.K.Awasthi) Judge AK/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court