Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal vs Jagdish on 13 December, 2016
Author: Jarat Kumar Jain
Bench: Jarat Kumar Jain
-: 1:- Criminal Revision No.1484 of 2015.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BENCH INDORE
( Single Bench )
( Hon'ble Shri Justice Jarat Kumar Jain )
Criminal Revision No.1484 of 2015
Shyamlal s/o Balkishan
VERSUS
Jagdish s/o Chunnilal and 2 others
*****
Shri N.J.Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Dharmendra Keharwar, learned counsel for the Non-applicants.
*****
O R D E R
( Passed on this 13th day of December, 2016 ) THIS revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [in brief "the Code"] has been filed against the order dated 21.09.2015 passed by IInd ASJ, Biaora, District Rajgarh (Biaora) in S.T.No.340/2015, whereby discharged the Non-applicants from the offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.
[2] Brief facts of this case are that the applicant has filed a private complaint against the Non-applicants for the offence under Sections 306, 294 and 352 of IPC. Learned Magistrate after enquiry took the cognizance for the offence under Sections 294 and 352 of IPC. Learned Magistrate explained the particulars of offence. Thereafter examined 5 prosecution witnesses and fixed the case for examination of accused. On that date applicant
-: 2:- Criminal Revision No.1484 of 2015.
(complainant) has filed an application under Section 323 of the Code with the prayer that there is material against the Non-applicants for framing the charge under Section 306 of IPC. After hearing the parties, learned Magistrate took the cognizance for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The order was challenged by the Non-applicants by way of Criminal Revision. The revisional Court set-aside the order of Magistrate and directed for further enquiry in the matter. After further enquiry, learned Magistrate was of the opinion that prima-facie there is material against the Non-applicants for the offence under Sections 294 and 306 of IPC. Hence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
[3] Learned ASJ after hearing the parties by the impugned order dated 21.09.2015 held that there is no ground for presuming that the Non-applicants have committed the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Hence, discharged the Non-applicants from the said charge and the case was transferred to the JMFC, Biaora. Being aggrieved with this order, the applicant has filed this revision.
[4] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Non-applicants have used abusive language for the applicant's wife and levelled charges of illicit relationship with others. Not only this, they have publicly defamed the deceased that she is a pros. Being aggrieved deceased had committed suicide. If any sensible lady is publicly defamed in regard to her character, certainly it amounts to instigation for committing suicide. It is settled law that at the time of framing charge, the Court has to consider prima-facie case
-: 3:- Criminal Revision No.1484 of 2015.
and minute scrutiny is not required. Learned ASJ while passing the impugned order has over looked the settled principle of law and passed the order of discharge which is not justifiable. Hence, it be set-aside.
[5] On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicants supports the impugned order.
[6] After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
[7] I would like to refer the judgment of this Court in the case of Nanka v/s State of M.P. [1999 (1) MPWN 52]. In this case, the Trial Court has convicted the accused under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The conviction is challenged in appeal. This Court after analysis of evidence held as under :-
"Held : Evidence as above would clearly indicate that the accused/appellants had abused deceased Geetarani, due to which she felt humiliated and insulted and the incident of self- immolation occurred as a sequel to such abuses. However, it may be noticed that the act of the accused/appellants was certainly reprehensible, but the question is whether above act of the accused/appellants would be covered by the definition of abetment under section 107 of IPC which is as below :-
"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 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."
From the above definition it is clear that for constituting abetment the accused/appellants must have instigated or shown to have entered into conspiracy or having intentionally aided a doing of a particular thing. In the instant case though the
-: 4:- Criminal Revision No.1484 of 2015.
appellants did abuse the deceased, but it does not appear that they have entered into any conspiracy, intentionally aided her or had instigated her to commit self-immolation. It is apparent that the cause of death was the agony and unbearable mental pain caused due to insult and abuses hurled by the accused/appellants. However, such abuses and remarks would not amount to instigation to commit self-immolation or to commit suicide. Therefore, the remarks as above may have been the reason or ground due to which suicide was committed, but they would not be covered by the definition of abetment as given under section 107 of IPC."
[8] The applicant in his statement under Section 200 of the Code made allegations against the Non-applicants which is as under :-
"1- ?kVuk fnukad 1&3&95 dh gS 1 ctsa txnh'k /kksch vk;k mlds lkFk eerk ckbZ] diMs lq[kkus ij ls fookn gqvkA vkjksihx.k us eka cgu dh cqjh cqjh xkfy;kW nh vkSj edku ij p<+ dj vk x;s vkSj ekjus dks rS;kj FksA vkjksihx.k us esjs dks dgk fd rqe xk.Mh gks rqe fgtMs gksA vkjksihx.k us dgk fd rqe rqEgkjh vkSjr dks nwljs ls pqnokrs gks rqEgkjh vkSjr j.Mh gS os';k gS bl izdkj ds v'yhy 'kCn vkjksihx.k us dgsA"
[9] From the aforesaid statement, it seems that there was some altercation between neighbourer due to domestic matter. In heat of passion, Non-applicants had hurled abuse at deceased Leelabai and levelled charges of illicit relationship on her. They also made a remark that deceased is a pros. From these remarks, it cannot be infered that the Non-applicants had a mens rea to instigate to commit suicide.
[10] If the aforesaid material is taken on its face value, it cannot be presumed that the Non-applicants had entered into any conspiracy or having intentionally aided, done a particular thing or instigated her to commit suicide. It is apparent that the cause of death was the agony and
-: 5:- Criminal Revision No.1484 of 2015.
unbearable mental pain due to insult and abuses hurled by the Non-applicants.
[11] With the aforesaid, I am of the view that the learned ASJ has rightly held that there is no material on record for framing the charge against the Non-applicants for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. Thus, there is no substance in this revision. Hence, the revision is hereby dismissed.
[ JARAT KUMAR JAIN ] JUDGE Sharma AK/*