Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Rajabai on 11 March, 2015
M.Cr.C.No.14278/2014
11.3.2015 Shri Ajay Tamrakar, learned Panel Lawyer for the
applicant-State.
Heard on I.A. No.17946/2014, an application for
condonation of delay in filing the leave application.
Looking to the grounds mentioned in the
application, whereas only 23 days' delay has been
caused, it would be proper to condone the delay in
filing the leave application. Consequently, the I.A. is
allowed. Delay of 23 days' in filing the present leave
application is hereby condoned.
Heard on admission.
The State has preferred a leave application
against the judgment dated 15/5/2014 passed by
Addl. Sessions Judge, Jatara District Tikamgarh in
S.T. No.213/2012 whereby the respondent was
acquitted from the charges of offence Section 306 of the IPC.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that deceased Sangeeta was residing at her village alongwith her brother Sitaram. The father and mother of the deceased went to Delhi to do some job of labourer. On 18/2/2012 at about 2:45 P.M. one Pappu Ahirwar has informed at Police Station Palera that deceased Sangeeta is found hanged in her house. During merg investigation, it was found that the M.Cr.C.No.14278/2014 respondent was the person who was alleging against the character of the deceased, therefore, she committed suicide.
Before the trial Court even the parents of the deceased have turned hostile. It could not be proved beyond doubt that there was any role of the respondent in death of deceased Sangeta. It was for the prosecution to establish that soon before the death of deceased Sangeeta, respondent has committed such overt acts which fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of the IPC. In absence of such overt acts, the respondent could not be convicted for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The trial Court has discussed the entire evidence at length. There is nothing adverse found in the finding of the trial Court. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment. It is not a case in which leave to appeal may be granted against the impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent. Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE rv