Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kumbha Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 September, 2018
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 898/2018
Kumbha Ram S/o Kalyan Ram, Aged About 33 Years, B/c
Meghwal , R/o Village Baniyawas, P.S. Mandi Distt. Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Lumba Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram, B/c Meghwal, R/o
Village Baniyawas, P.s. Mandi Distt. Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Choudhary
Mr. Ankit Chouhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Order 25/09/2018
1. Petitioner has preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 10.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, whereby petitioner has been charged for offence under Section 306 IPC.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation namesake against the petitioner of having instigated the deceased to commit suicide. A note has been recovered by the Police in investigation in which the deceased has mentioned that if she commits suicide then she would herself be responsible for her death, this document was signed by the deceased as well as her brothers.
3. It is also contended that allegation against the petitioner is that he was having affair with the deceased which continued even (2 of 4) [CRLR-898/2018] after marriage and petitioner was forcing the deceased to stay at her parent's home. It is argued that in the F.I.R. initially lodged the allegation was against her husband that he was harassing the deceased as she was having some affair.
4. It is also contended that the name of petitioner is not appearing in the FIR. Police after due investigation has filed charge-sheet against husband of the deceased for offence under Section 304(B) & 498(A) IPC. The Court has taken cognizance against her husband under Sections 498(A) & 304(B) IPC and in the alternate Section 302 IPC.
5. It is argued that when police has submitted charge-sheet against husband under Sections 498(A) & 304(B) IPC offence against petitioner under Section 306 IPC is not made out.
6. It is also contended that no record was produced with the charge-sheet to the effect that petitioner was in constant touch with the deceased.
7. It is also contended that from the evidence adduced, it is revealed that the deceased was under depression, her husband was doubting her character and mother of deceased has also stated in her interrogation that deceased was under severe mental depression as her husband was harassing her and for that reason deceased committed suicide.
8. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence namesake that petitioner have instigated the deceased to commit suicide and, even if, the prosecution version is accepted that he was having relation with the deceased, the same cannot be considered to be a ground for framing charges against against 307 IPC.
(3 of 4) [CRLR-898/2018]
9. My attention has been drawn towards the statement of Prakashmal and Girdhari Ram, who have stated that they have heard that deceased was having illicit relations with the petitioner prior to her marriage. It is contended that hearsay evidence cannot form the basis of framing charge.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the revision petition. It is contended that from investigation it is revealed that petitioner was having illicit relations with the deceased and was forcing the deceased to stay at her parents home. Deceased under severe depression due to character assassination by her husband and as a cumulative effect she committed suicide.
11. I have considered the contentions. Deceased herself left a note that if she commits suicide she would be responsible for her own act. This note was written on 18.12.2016 in presence of brothers of deceased. Deceased committed suicide on 04.01.2017 i.e. after 17 days of writing of the said document.
12. There is no direct evidence to the effect that deceased was instigated or abated by the petitioner to commit suicide. Even if the prosecution version that petitioner was having illicit relation is accepted still there is nothing on record to implicate the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In the case of S.S.Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in 2010(2) WLC (SC) Criminal a suicide note was found wherein, it was mentioned that the deceased was committing suicide because false allegation of theft was levelled. Nothing was mentioned against appellant in suicide note. The Apex Court quashed the orders vide which charges were framed.
14. In the present case in hand, if her last version is accepted, no case is made out against the petitioner.
(4 of 4) [CRLR-898/2018]
15. There is no evidence namesake to connect the petitioner with the crime, he has been booked only on basis of hearsay evidence, hence framing of the charges against the petitioner under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained.
16. Revision Petition is allowed impugned order dated 10.07.2018 qua the petitioner is quashed and petitioner is discharged for offence under Section 306 IPC.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Ravi Kh./54 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)