Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ravi Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 July, 2018
1
Cri. Rev. No.1971/2013
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Criminal Revision No.1971/2013
(Ravi Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh)
Jabalpur, Dated 13.07.2018:
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent State.
This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed against the order dated 26.08.2013, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni, in Sessions Trial No.37/2012, framing the charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.10.2008 a dead body of unknown person was found on the railway track under G.R.P. Katni. On that basis a marg intimation No.132/2008 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., was registered. During the course of Panchnama proceedings a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased which had shown that the deceased person was Chablal, son of Fundilal, aged about 46 years, Resident of Village Kham, Post Dag, Tahsil Rithi, District Katni. The contents of the suicide note are as under:-
"esa vkt fnukad 19@10@08 dks vius izkM+ ns jgk gwW ctg ;g gS fd txnh'k frokjh i0n0 o"kZ ,oa jfo ikUMs lk dVuh eqgYyk ugh 2 Cri. Rev. No.1971/2013 tkurk frokjh dks ekyqe gS tehus [kjhnrk gSA ;s nksuksa vkneh esjh ekSr ds tqEesnkj ,oa dkj.k gSa ;s yksxksa us tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsrs gSA esa ukSdjh ls fudkyk x;k eq>s Hkkjh nq[k gSA ftldk dkj.k nksuksa gSA esjh ekSr ds vijk/kh gSaA esjk irk Ncyky dksVokj [kkEg e>xkW iVsgjk Fkkuk jhVh LFkkbZ fuoklh [kkEg n- Ncyky dksVokj 19@10@08"
3. On the basis of suicide note in which name of applicant Ravi Kumar Pandey and one other person Jagdish Tiwari has been alleged to be mentioned. A minute scrutiny has also revealed that applicant Ravi Kumar Pandey and one other person Jagdish Tiwari were instrumental in indulging the deceased in some fake land transactions and they were also indulge to threaten him to his life.
4. A Crime No.26/2011 has been registered against Ravi Kumar Pandey and one other person Jagdish Tiwari for instigating the deceased to commit suicide. During the course of trial aforesaid charge under Section 306 of IPC has been framed by the learned trial Court against the applicant, aggrieved by which this revision has been filed.
5. Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated by 3 Cri. Rev. No.1971/2013 the Police at the instance of complainant party. The police has not procured sufficient evidence against him, which may amount to registration of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC against the applicant. There is no prima-face case is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the story of the prosecution. There is no sufficient ground to proceed and continue the criminal case against the applicant; and hence, he is liable to be discharged. It is further submitted that there is a delay of registration of crime, which created doubt on the genuineness of the suicide note. Even after taking into consideration the whole prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR, no case is made out against the present applicant because it is not alleged that applicant has threatened to the extent that the deceased commit suicide. It has also been submitted that the prosecution itself has collected the evidence that the deceased being Kotwar had done grave misconduct and there were irregularities found in discharging his official duties and for that reason he was suspended and he himself apprehended that after departmental enquiry he will lost his job and that may be a reason of his committing suicide. It has also been submitted that there is not an iota of evidence on which charge under Section 306 of IPC can be framed against the applicant; therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 26.08.2013 by which a charge 4 Cri. Rev. No.1971/2013 under Section 306, IPC has been framed against the applicant for instigating the deceased that lead him to commit suicide, is liable to be quashed and the applicant be discharged.
6. On the other hand, Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that there is specific averments against the applicant in the alleged suicide note. The learned trial Court rightly and wisely framed charges against the applicant, hence, this revision deserves to be dismissed.
7. On a careful perusal of the documents filed with the revision, particularly the charge-sheet prima-facie well founded case is made out against the applicant for framing of charge. At the stage of framing charge the Court cannot apply its judicial mind for the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused.
8. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of framing of charge by the trial Court. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon material before the trial Court, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged 5 Cri. Rev. No.1971/2013 may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence is lawful.
9. At this stage it is not required to go into the merits of the prosecution evidence as required to discuss at the stage of passing of judgment by the trial Court. There is no need to sift and weigh or appreciate the prosecution evidence as well as defence available to the applicants and come to the conclusion that no prima-facie case is made out nor could be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 26.08.2013 warranting interference by way of this revision petition against framing of charge. Hence, the revision is dismissed summarily.
(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.
Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2018.07.19 02:23:36 -07'00'