Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sitaram Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2017
1 CRR No.778/2017
(Sitaram Yadav & Ors. vs. State of M.P.)
27.10.2017
Shri S.K. Tiwari, Counsel for the applicants.
Shri R.V.S. Ghuraiya, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 21.6.2017 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial Judge No.9/2017 by which the charges under Sections 294, 306/34 in the alternative 302/34 of IPC have been framed.
The necessary facts for the disposal of the present revision in short are that the complainant Mohar Singh made an oral complaint on 17.10.2016 alleging that the son of his mother's sister Parmal Singh had consumed poisonous substance on a previous day and he was brought to Mungawali Hospital where the Medical Officer had referred him to Bhopal and he had expired on the way. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. During investigation the police recorded the statement of Abhishek Singh, son of the deceased who has stated that on 15.10.2016 the deceased had demanded his money back from the applicants and, therefore, the applicants started abusing him and humiliated him. The deceased came back to his house and went to sleep and his father was very upset as he was abused. On 16.10.2016 as it was a holiday, therefore, he was in the house. At about 11:00 in the afternoon he noticed that his father was vomiting. On enquiry, the deceased informed his elder son that he has consumed poisonous substance.
2 CRR No.778/2017Rampal, the elder son of the deceased, had stated that on 16.10.2016 at about 11:00 PM his father all of a sudden started vomiting and on enquiry, he informed that he has consumed poisonous substance. During investigation, one suicide note of the deceased was recovered in which it was mentioned that the applicants have forcibly administered the poisonous substance. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 306, 294, 34 of IPC.
The Trial Court by order dated 21.6.2017 has framed charge under Sections 294, 306/34 of IPC or in the alternative 302/34 of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that even if the entire allegations are accepted then the prosecution case is that the deceased had given loan to the applicants and when he demanded the money back, he was abused by the applicants. Therefore, even if the entire allegations are accepted, then it would be clear that no offence under Section 306 of IPC has been made out. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that the suicide note was written by the deceased, therefore, the Trial Court has committed an illegality by framing the charge under Section 302 of IPC as well.
Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that both the charges, i.e. under Section 302 of IPC or in the alternative under Section 306 of IPC, can be framed. It is further submitted that in view of the statements of the sons of the deceased as well as in view of the suicide note recovered from the clothes of the deceased, the trial Court was justified in framing charge 3 CRR No.778/2017 under Section 306 of IPC or in the alternative 302 of IPC. It is further submitted that it is for the prosecution to prove that the suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased, which shall be done during the trial. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Sarada Prasanna Dalai vs. Inspector General of Police reported in (2017) 5 SCC 381 has directed the Trial Court to consider the framing of additional charge under Section 302 of IPC along with the charge under Section 306 of IPC.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is clear from the charge sheet that the police did not file the charge sheet under Section 302 of IPC. However, the so called suicide note which was recovered from the clothes of the deceased was also filed. From the Naksha Panchnama, it is clear that when the dead body of the deceased was seen, at that time the suicide note was recovered from the pocket of his pant. The said suicide note has also been filed along with the charge sheet. Therefore, at this stage it can be said that the suicide note is also a part of the charge sheet. Whether the suicide note is in the handwriting of the deceased or not is a matter of evidence.
From the ocular evidence, which has come on record, it appears that it is a case of the prosecution that the deceased had made an oral dying declaration to his son to the effect that on the question of asking for return of his money, the deceased was humiliated and abused by the applicants and, therefore, he has committed suicide whereas the suicide note says that the applicants have 4 CRR No.778/2017 administered the poisonous substance. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed any mistake in framing charge under Section 306/34 of IPC or in the alternative under Section 302/34 of IPC. Accordingly, the order dated dated 21.6.2017 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mungawali, District Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial Judge No.9/2017 is hereby affirmed.
This revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge