Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh @ Nanhu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2013
CRR.No.2265/2012
Criminal Revision No.2265/2012
9.1.2013 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, counsel for the
applicant.
Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/
respondent.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.
The applicant has challenged the order dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dindori in S.T.No.84/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under sections 342, 305 of IPC were appended against the applicant.
The facts relating to the present revision, in short, are that, the applicant was a distant brother of the deceased. On 19.6.2012, the victim Anita was residing in the house of her maternal grandfather at village Chidgaon. She was staying in the room at the time of the incident, when a customary function was going on in the house. She was collecting the clothings in the room and the applicant came inside the room to charge a mobile. In the meantime, the co-accused Baratu closed the door from front side and locked it. The deceased and the applicant were confined in the room for half an hour. The deceased shouted but, nobody took any cognizance of her shouting. Thereafter, when the door was opened, CRR.No.2265/2012 Amarwati, aunt of the deceased was standing in front of the door and Amarwati told the deceased that she would not talk with the deceased in future and therefore, the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil upon her and set herself on fire. Dying declaration etc. were recorded and thereafter, a charge-sheet was filed.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the applicant neither visited the room with any bad intention, nor he confined the deceased, whereas he was also confined by the co-accused Baratu and therefore, no offence punishable under section 342 of IPC is made out against the present applicant Narendra Singh @ Nanhu. Similarly, it is accepted by the deceased that the applicant went inside the room to charge his mobile. He did not touch the deceased and therefore, there was no mal- intention of the applicant in entering the room. It is also apparent from the dying declaration of the deceased that since her aunt Amarwati saw her in the room alongwith the applicant and she told her that she would not talk with the deceased in future, therefore, she committed suicide and therefore, there was no role of the applicant in the act of CRR.No.2265/2012 suicide done by the deceased. However, if overt-acts of the applicant is considered in all then, they do not fall within the purview of section 107 of IPC and therefore, no offence punishable under sections 305 or 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant. The learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in framing the charges of offence punishable under sections 342, 305 of IPC against the applicant. Hence, it is a good case, in which the revision filed by the applicant can be accepted. Consequently, revision filed by the applicant Narendra Singh @ Nanhu is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 2.11.2012 is hereby set aside. The applicant is discharged from the charges of offence punishable under section 305, 342 of IPC.
A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra