Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Pal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 September, 2023
Author: Achal Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Achal Kumar Paliwal
1 Cr.R. No. 360/2021
Cr.R. No. 604/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPU R
BEFORE
JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 360 OF 2021
BETWEEN:-
ASHA DEVI, W/O LATE SHRI RAM DAWARPAL, AGED
ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSE WIFE, R/O
JAIN COLONY, NEW KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SATYAM AGRAWAL- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION GRP KATNI DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANOJ SONI - PANEL LAWYER.
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 604 OF 2021
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP PAL, S/O PHOOLCHAND PAL, AGED ABOUT
26 YEARS, OCCUPATION SERVICE, R/O JAIN COLONY,
P.S. NEW KATNI JUNCTION, DISTRICT KATNI,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MUKESH KUMAR PANDEY- ADVOCATE)
2 Cr.R. No. 360/2021
Cr.R. No. 604/2021
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION GRP KATNI DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.... RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI MANOJ SONI - PANEL LAWYER)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 12.09.2023
Pronounced on : 25.09.2023
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These criminal revisions having been heard and reserved for order,
coming on for pronouncement this day, Justice Achal Kumar Paliwal
pronounced the following:
ORDER
These criminal revision petitions under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. arise out of common order dated 26.12.2020 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, District Katni, in Sessions Trial No. 12/2020, whereby charge under Section 306/34 of IPC has been framed against the petitioners. Therefore, they are being disposed by this common order.
2. Briefly facts relevant for the disposal of present revision are that on 08.11.2014 deceased Ramdavar Pal committed suicide and a suicide note was recovered from his pocket. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, handwriting of suicide note was got examined by handwriting expert and it was found that suicide note has been written by deceased Ramdavar Pal. After marg inquiry, FIR under Section 306/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioners. During 3 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021 investigation, it was found that petitioners used to harass deceased and deceased committed suicide on account of harassment caused by petitioners. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Section 306/34 was filed against the petitioners in the Court of JMFC, Katni and same was committed to Sessions Court, Katni which was registered as ST No. 12/2020 (State of MP Vs. Sandeep Pal and another).
Submissions of Learned Counsel for Petitioners:-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case, deceased committed suicide on 08.11.2014 and FIR has been registered after five years on 07.11.2019. During this period of five years, no complaint was made to anybody. It is also urged that a suicide note has been recovered from the pocket of deceased and therein, only it is mentioned that ^^esjh iRuh vk'kk nsoh ds ijs'kku djus ls tku ns jgk gWawA HkwisUnz funksZ"k gSA lanhi iky Hkh ijs'kku djrk gSA vkj-vkj- iky tSu dkyksuh**
4. In suicide note there are no specific allegations against petitioners as to how or in what manner petitioners used to harass the deceased. Property dispute would not attract offence under Section 306/107 of IPC. In statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is mentioned that deceased was mentally ill and he was under
treatment. It is also mentioned in statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., that deceased used to remain disturb on account of his mistakes/previous acts. Facts mentioned in suicide note/statements recorded under 161 of CrPC etc. may be the reason for committing suicide but that will not come within the ambit of abetment.4 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021
Therefore, on the basis of above facts and relying upon Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of MP (Appeal (crl.) No. 572/2022) dated 01.05.2002, Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of MP and others, Appeal (Crl No. 7284/2017) dated 26.07.2021, Criminal Revision No. 725/2016 dated 10.02.2017, (2019) 10 SCC 188, (2007) 10 SCC 797, 2012(2) MPLJ (Cri) 764, 2008 (1) MPLJ (Cri) SC 514, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prima facie no offence under Section 306/107 is made out and charge under Section 306/34 of IPC can not be framed against the petitioners as there is no sufficient material to frame the aforesaid charge. Deceased had lodged a report under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. against Raj Kumar Pal before committing suicide, but deceased did not make any complaint/report against the petitioners.
5. On above grounds, it is urged that learned trial Court has erred in law as well as on facts in framing charge against petitioners under Section 306/34 of IPC. Hence, the impugned order be set aside and petitioners be discharged.
Submissions of Learned Panel Lawyer for Respondent/State:-
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the instant case, suicide note has been recovered and therein it is mentioned that on account of harassment by petitioners, deceased has committed suicide. Report of handwriting expert corroborates the suicide note and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also corroborate suicide note. There is sufficient evidence to frame aforesaid charge against petitioners and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned order. At this stage, merits of the case can 5 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021 not be looked into and neither evidence on record can be appreciated minutely. Hence, these revision petitions be dismissed.
FINDINGS:-
LEGAL PRINCIPLES WITH RESPECT TO INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 306/107 of IPC:
7. Before discussing the facts of the case & proceeding further, it would be appropriate to discuss basic legal principles/legal parameters with respect to offence under Section 306/107 of IPC.
8. In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200- (3-Judge Bench), Hon'ble apex has laid down as under:-
"13. Section 107 IPC defines "abetment" and in this case, the following part of the section will bear consideration: -
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or * * * Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
14. The definition quoted above makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing.
15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous............"
6 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/202116. The necessary ingredients for the offence under section 306 IPC was considered in the case SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 , where explaining the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:-
"25. 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
9. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 6 SCC 605, Hon'ble apex court has held as under:-
"13. As per the Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, 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 takes 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 to Section 107 states that any willful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC."
"15. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618."
"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh Kumar, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or 7 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021 encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation"
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be (2001) 9 SCC 618 capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation."
"17. Thus, 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". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition)."
"18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter."
"19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), 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 8 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021 sthe manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
10. In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433, Hon'ble apex court held as under:-
"21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 of IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide."
70. If we examine facts of the present case in the light of above legal parameters, we are of the considered opinion that it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that appellant abated the prosecutrix to commit suicide by the said act of rape. The above act may be the reason to commit suicide by prosecutrix but that by itself cannot amount to abetement to commit suicide. Therefore, we are of the view that in the instant case, ingredients constituting offence under Section 306 of IPC are not made out/are clearly missing.
11. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shabbir Hussain Vs. State of MP and others (Appeal (crl.) No. 7284/2017, Dated 26.07.2021, has held as under:-
"In order to bring a case within the provison of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an 9 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021 active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide.
Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC [Amalendu Pal V. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707].
Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide.[Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)(2009) 16 SCC 605].
In the instant case, the allegations against Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 is that they harassed the deceased. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. The High court did not commit any error in allowing the Criminal Revision."
ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:-
12. Before analyzing the facts of the case, I would like to refer the allegations made against petitioners in suicide note allegedly recovered from the deceased's pocket and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. etc.
13. Suicide note recovered in the case reads as follows ^^esjh iRuh vk'kk nsoh ds ijs'kku djus ls tku ns jgk gWawA HkwisUnz funksZ"k gSA lanhi iky Hkh ijs'kku djrk gSA vkj-vkj- iky tSu dkyksuh**
14. Complainant made by Rajkumar etc. to SP Katni etc. reads as under:-
^^izfr] 01 Jheku~ iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; th] e0iz0 'kklu dVuh ftyk tcyiqj ¼e0iz0½¼th-vkj-ih-½ 02 ekuuh; uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn; th] 10 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021 dVuh] ftyk dVuh e0iz0 03 Jheku~ Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; th] th0vkj0ih0 Fkkuk ubZ dVuh taD'ku] dVuh e0iz0 04 Jheku~ Fkkuk izHkkjh egksn; th] th-vkj-ih- Fkkuk] dVuh ¼e0iz0½ fo"k;%&Lo0 Jh jke noj iky firk Jh jkenkl] vk;q yx0 61 o"kZ] fuoklh txthouokMZ tSu dkyksuh ubZ dVuh] ftyk dVuh e0iz0 }kjk fnukad 8-11-2014 dks ,u0ds0ts- lh dsfcu ds ikl@,u0ds0ts0 ;kMZ esa jsy ykbu ls dVdj vkRe gR;k fd;s tkus ckor~A egkuqHkko]
--------------------foxr dqN le; ls esjh nwljh eka ,oa ekek dk yMdk lanhi iky ds }kjk /ku dks ysdj ekufld] 'kkjhfjd ,oa vkfFkZd izrkMuk nh tk jgh FkhA vHkh gky esa gh nwljh eka ds lxs laca/kh tSls lkl] lkyh] cMk cguksbZ Jh ykyrk izlkn tkSuiqj ls fnukad 2-11-2014 dks dVuh vk;s Fks rFkk muds }kjk gekjs firk th dks irk ugha D;k /kedh o izrkMuk nh fd gekjs firk viuh tku nsus ij etcwj gks x;s rFkk mUgksaus fnukad 8-11-2014 dks ,d lqlkbZM uksV fy[kdj vkRegR;k dj yhA--------------------------
izkFkhZx.k 01 Jh jktdqekj iky firk Lo0 jkenoj iky fuoklh egkohj uxj f>a>jh dVuh e0iz0 eks0 7024128702 02 Jherh lfork iky iRuh t;'kadj iky iq=h Lo0 jke noj iky fuoklh xzke mejNs iks0 chjHkkuiqj] CykWd cDlk ftyk tkSuiqj] eks0 8574327646] 9455322321 03 Jh HkwisUnz flag iky firk Jh jke noj iky fuoklh txthou okMZ] tSu dkyksuh ubZ dVuh** 11 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021
15. Relevant material facts mentioned in the statements of witness Bhuptendra Pal, Rajkumar Pal, Narayan Singh Verma, Bhaiya Lal, Savita Pal, Santosh Pal recorded under Section 161 or Cr.P.C. are as follows:-
^^dFku fnukad 16-11-2014
(i) uke & HkwisUnz iky firk jkenoj iky me 30 o"kZ fuoklh tSu dkyksuh u;k xkWo] dVuh
-------------------esjs firk th dks ?kj esa fdlh izdkj dh ijs'kkuh o okn fookn ?kj esa ugh gksrk FkkA mUgksaus ge lHkh HkkbZ;ksa dks viuh izkiVhZ esa cjkcj cjkcj fgLlk cVokjk dj fn;k FkkA--------------
^^dFku 19-06-2015
(ii) uke & jktdqekj iky firk Lo0 Jh jke noj iky mez 41 lky fuoklh egkohj uxj] dysDVªsV dk;Zy; ds ikl f>a>jh dVuh eks0 7024128702
---------------esjs firk th ges'kk vkRe Xykuh es jgrs FksA rFkk dqafBr jgrs Fks esjh ekWa ds dkj.k gh esjs firk th us vkRe gR;k dh gSA----------** ^^dFku 3-12-2014
(iii)- uke & ukjk;.k flag oekZ firk Lo- Jh eku flag oekZ mez 44 fuoklh tSu dkyksuh ckcw txthoujke U;w dVuh ftyk dVuh e-iz-
----------------------fjVk;esaV ds ckn viuh iRuh vk'kk nsoh iq= lanhi ccyh ds rFkk HkwisUnz th lkFk jgrk gSA budk ekufld fLFkfr Bhd ugh jgrh Fkh ftudk bykt Hkh py jgk FkkA-----------------jke Mokj dk cMk csVk vtej vkdj yM+kbZ >xM+k djrk Fkk dHkh&dHkh ekj ihV Hkh djrk FkkA ges'kk iSlk Hkh ekaxk djrk jgrk rFkk 'kjkc ihus dk vkfn gSA jke Mokj dk csVk lanhi Hkh jsYos esa ukSdjh djrk gS o HkwisUnz ?kj ij jgrk gStks nhekd ls FkksM+k detksj gSA tks ?kj ij jgrk gS mudk ifjokj ds dkbZ fookn ugha gksrk FkkA** ^^dFku 3-12-2014
(iv) uke & HkS;kyky firk Jh xtjkt Jhokl mez 56 fuoklh tSu dkyksuh U;w dVuh okMZ ckcw txthoujke okMZ dVuh 12 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021
-----------nwljk yM+dk lanhi] yM+dh ccyh iRuh vk'kk nsoh ds lkFk jgrs gSA jktdqekj ?kj ij vkdj yMkbZ >xMk djrk FkkA o :i;ks dh ekax djrk FkkA jke Mokj blh ds jgrs ekufld fLFkfr Bhd ugh jgrh FkhA bldk bykt Hkh djkrs FksA bUgksus Vªsu vkdj dSls tku nhA eq>s bldh tkudkjh ugh gS ifjokj es dHkh dksbZ fookn ugh gksrk FkkA esjs }kjk le>kus ij -------¼viBuh;½ dh fookn djrk FkkA** ^^dFku ¼e`rd dh iq=h½
(v) Jherh lfork iky ifr Jh t;'kadj iky mez 38 o"kZ fuoklh mejNk Fkkuk cDlk rg- lnj ftyk tksuiqj ¼m-iz-½ eks0 ua- 9455322321
--------------rFkk esjs firk o vk'kk nsoh iky yM+dh ccyh iky yM+dk lanhi iky o esjk NksVk HkkbZ HkwisUnz iky tSu dkyksuh ,u-ds-ts- ds edku es jgus yxs fQj Hkh ;s yksx vk'kk nsoh ,oa mudk yM+dk lanhi iky dkQh izrkf.kr djrs FksA esjs firkth esjs ;gka vkrs Fks rks ;g lc ckrs esjs ls esjs ifr ls o f>>ajh dVuh cM+s HkkbZ jktdqekj iky ds ;gka tc tkrs FksA rks muls rFkk HkkHkh ls ;g lc ckr crkrs Fks vkSj ckr djrs&djrs jks Hkh nsrs Fks rFkk viuh dh gqbZ xyrh ls dkQh nq[kh jgrs FksA esjs firk o ekaeh vk'kk nsoh iky ds voS/k laaca/k iwoZ ls FksA esjs firk viuh nwljh iRuh vk'kk nsoh ,oa yM+dk lanhi iky dh izrk.kuk ls nq[kh gksdj Vªsu ls dVdj vkRe gR;k dj fy;s Fks rFkk muds }kjk izrkf.kr fd;s tkus dk Lok'kkgV uksV ejus ds igys fy[k dj vius tc esa j[k fy;s FksA tks e`R;q ds ckn ih-,e- djkus ds igys Fkkuk th-vkj-ih- iqfyl ,u-ds-ts- dks feyk FkkA ftls tIr fd;k x;k Fkk] esjs firk dh nwljh iRuh rFkk mudk csVk lanhi iky esjs firk dk edku o mudh tek laiRrh lc ys fy;s gSA ftlls izrkf.kr gksdj mUgksus vkRe gR;k dj fy;s gSA esjs firk o ifjokj dks u"V djus esa nwljh iRuh vk'kk nsoh vkSj lanhi iky iw.kZ :i ls ftEesnkj gSA ;gh esjs dFku gSA eSus tSlk cksyk oSlk fy[kk x;k gSA i<+dj ns[kk o uhps gLrk{kj fd;s gSA** ^^dFku ¼e`rd dh cgw½ fnukad 21-8-2019
(vi)- Jherh larks"k iky ifr Lo- jktdqekj iky mez 35 o"kZ fuoklh egkaohj dkyksuh f>a>jh dVuh Fkkuk ek/ko uxj dVuh eks- ua- 7065260815 13 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021
-----------------rFkk llqj jke njcj iky o nwljh iRuh vk'kk nsoh iky mudh yM+dh ccyh iky yM+dk lanhi iky o esjk nsoj HkwisUnz iky lkFk esa tSu dkyksuh ,u-ds-ts- ds edku es jgus yxs FksA fQj Hkh ;s yksx vk'kk nsoh iky o yM+dk lanhi iky dkQh izrkf.kr djrs Fksa tks llqj jke njoj iky gekjs ;gka ge yksxks ls feyus vkrs Fks rks ;g lc ckrs esjs ls o ifr jkedqekj iky ls crkrs Fks rFkk jks Hkh nsrs Fks rFkk viuh dh gqbZ xyfr;ksa ls dkQh nq[kh jgrs Fksa esjs llqj viuh nqljh iRuh vk'kk nsoh ,oa yMdk lanhi iky dh izrk.kuk ls nq[kh gksdj Vªsu ls dVdj vkRe gR;k dj fy;s Fks rFkk muds }kjk izrkf.kr fd;s tkus dk 'kkslk;V uksV ejus ds igys fy[k dj vius tsc esa j[k fy;s FksA tks e`R;q ds ckn ih-,e- djkus ds igys Fkkuk th-vkj-ih- iqfyl ,u-ds-ts- dks feyk FkkA ftls tIr fd;k ;xk FkkA esjs llqj dh nwljh iRuh rFkk mudk csVk lanhi iky esjs llqj dk edku o mudh tek laiRrh lc ys fy;s gSA ftlls izrkf.kr gksdj mUgksus vkRe gR;k dj fy;s gSA ;gh esjs dFku gSA rFkk esa vius irh jke dqekj iky dk e`R;q izek.k i= Hkh lkFk esa is'kdjrh gwWa eSus tSlk cksyk oSlk fy[kk x;k gSA i<+dj ns[kk o uhps gLrk{kj fd;s gSA**
16. If above facts/over all evidence collected against the petitioners during investigation and which has been filed along with the charge- sheet is examined/assessed on the anvil/in the light of legal principles/parameters as discussed in the preceding paras, then, in this Court's considered opinion the facts/evidence collected by the prosecution against the petitioners can at the most be the reason of committing suicide by the deceased but by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that petitioners abetted deceased to commit suicide. In this Court's opinion, even if all the evidence collected by prosecution against the petitioners is taken and accepted on the face value, even, then it cannot be said that petitioners have abetted deceased to commit suicide.
17. Therefore, over all evidence available against the petitioners is not even sufficient to prima facie proceed further against petitioners 14 Cr.R. No. 360/2021 Cr.R. No. 604/2021 with respect to offence under Section 306/34 of IPC & it is not sufficient to frame charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC and. It is also noteworthy that in the instant case, deceased committed suicide on 08.11.2014 & after marg inquiry, FIR has been registered on 07.11.2019.
18. Hence in view of above, in this Court's considered opinion, there is no sufficient grounds/material to prima facie proceed further against the petitioners and frame charges under section 306/34 of IPC. Prima facie evidence collected during investigating against petitioners & filed with the charge-sheet do not make out ingredients necessary to consitute offence under Section 306 of IPC. Learned trial Court has committed material/grave illegality in framing charge under Section 306/34 of IPC against the petitioners.
19. Hence, in view of discussion in the foregoing paras & for the reasons stated as above, these criminal revisions are allowed and the impugned order dated 26.12.2020 passed in S.T. No.12/2020 by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, being illegal/incorrect is hereby set aside & petitioners are discharged with respect to charge/offence under section 306/34 of IPC.
20. Accordingly, these criminal revisions are disposed off.
(ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Digitally L.R.signed by LALIT SINGH RANA Date: 2023.09.25 17:37:47 +05'30'