Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madanlal Mukati vs State Of M.P. on 25 July, 2023
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6155 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
1. MADANLAL MUKATI S/O BHURALAL, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST
VILLAGE KAJLANA, TEHSIL SANWER, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SATYANARAYAN @ SATISH S/O MADANLAL
MUKATI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O: VILLAGE KAJLANA, TEHSIL
SANWER DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SUNIL S/O MADANLAL MUKATI, AGED ABOUT 40
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O:
VILLAGE KAJLANA, TEHSIL SANWER DIST
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SMT. CHANDRAKANTABAI W/O MADANLAL
MUKATI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O: VILLAGE KAJLANA, TEHSIL
SANWER DIST INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF M.P. STATION HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH
P.S. SANWER, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SATOSH SINGH THAKUR, DY GA FOR THE STATE)
.............................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 13.07.2023
Delivered on: 25.07.2023
This revision coming on for ADMISSION this day, with the consent of
parties, heard finally and the court passed the following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 2
1. Present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 21.11.2019 passed in ST No.595/2019 by 25th ASJ, District Indore whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges against the petitioner under Section 306/34 of IPC.
2. According to the prosecution story, on 30.03.2019 one prabhulal has committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. It is alleged that a suicide note was also recovered from pocket of the deceased in which the allegations against the petitioners are that they abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The allegations of threatening, pressurizing and beating have been leveled against the petitioners and on account of this, the deceased has committed suicide. On the said incident, merg no.21/2019 was registered by the police and during investigation, an FIR under Section 306/34 bearing crime No.129/2019 was registered against the petitioners. Thereafter, vide the impugned order, the charges under Sections 306/34 of IPC was framed by the learned trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by learned judge is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record. The learned trial Court has completely erred in not considering the fact that the case of the prosecution is completely false and based on the concocted story and a suicide note in which nothing incriminating is there against the petitioners. It is further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence of harassment or causing abetment to the deceased. Even though there is no allegations regarding any harassment, the learned Judge has erred in framing the charges by overlooking the parameters of 'abetment' which has been stated in Section 107 of IPC.
Signature Not Verified4. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioners has placed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 3 reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. The State of Gujarat [2013 (10) SCC 48], Ghusabhai Raisanghbhai Courasiya vs. The State of Gujarat, [2015 (11) SCC 753], K.V. Prakash Babu vs. The State of Karnataka [2017 (11) SCC 176], M. Mohan vs. State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police [2011 CRI.L.J.1900]. That apart, counsel for the petitioners has also placed his reliance on the judgments of Rajesh vs. State of Haryana [2019 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) (SC) 278, Prakash Chandra Garg and Others vs. State of M.p. [2019 (3) MPLJ (Cri.) 465 & Govind vs. The State of M.P. passed on 14.11.2022 in CRR No.1381/2021.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and supported the impugned order by submitting that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in framing the charges against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the petitioners have harassed the the deceased due to which, he has committed suicide. Hence, the learned Court below has rightly framed the charges against the petitioners.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of counsel for the parties, the record of the case has been perused.
7. Now, the question for consideration arises as to whether the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court with regard to framing of charges under Section 306 of IPC, is improper, illegal or incorrect?
8. At the outset, the citations placed before this Court by the petitioners are worth considering. In M. Mohan (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court deciding the criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction under Section 306 of IPC enunciated the following ratio. Relevant paragraph no.45 of this pronouncement Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 4 is worth to quote here:-
" 45. 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."
9 . Looking to the aforesaid propositions, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid judgment was passed while considering the appeal against conviction whereas this criminal revision is related to the question of framing of charges under Section 306 of IPC. Same is the position in the cases of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), Ghusabhai (supra), K.V. Prakash Babu (supra) & in Rajesh (supra). Since all of the above judgments are also related to the appeals against final judgments of concerned High Courts, the petitioners cannot be benefited from these case laws.
10. Now, turning to other citations, in Prakash Chandra (supra), no suicide note was placed before the Court whereas in the case in hand, a detailed suicide not has been recovered and filed by the prosecution. Another case of Govind (supra), which is related to the fact that the deceased was facing the financial crisis during lock down period and due to this, he took a loan from the petitioners therein and other co-accused persons of that case, but the deceased could not able to return the loan amount so advanced to him by the petitioners. The case in hand is not pertaining to recovery of loan whereas it pertains to harassment and cruelty. Hence, the petitioners of this case cannot take any advantage from this case.
11. In the instant case, I have gone through the evidence available on record and found that there is sufficient evidence for constituting strong suspicion against the petitioners regarding the fact that they have tortured and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 5 harassed the deceased before his death. It is found that on account of that harassment, he has taken such unfortunate step to end his life.
12. According to the suicide note, the petitioners have not only harassed him mentally, but also beaten his children and wife. In the suicide note, it is alleged that the petitioners have forcibly grabbed the land of the deceased and also threatened to kill his children. The allegations of tyranny with his father is also made in the suicide note. The said suicide note is also fortified by FIR and other evidence available on record.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the impugned orders are not sustainable. On this aspect, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Debendranath Padhi [2004 Law Suit (SC) 1408] is worth to refer here as under:
"Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth."
14. This Court is conscious of the various decisions laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. In the case of Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another [AIR 1979 SC 366], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"The scope of section 227 of the Code was considered by a recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh(1) Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 6 where Untwalia, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows:-
"Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is not in the sense of the law governing the trial of criminal cases in France where the accused is presumed to be guilty unless the contrary is proved. But it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor pro poses to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebut ted by the defence evidence; if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial".
1 5 . Learned counsel has vehemently stressed that the ingredients of Sections 306 and 107 of IPC have not been made out on the basis of material available on record. On this aspect, the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Kaurav vs. Baishab and others [2020 (3) SCC 317] is relevant in context of this case. The Hon'ble Apex Court reversing the order of this Court as to the offence of 306 of IPC observed as under:-
"Moreover, the High Court was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that the deceased informed him about the harassment meted Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 7 out by Respondent Nos.1 to 3 which she was not able to bear and hence wanted to commit suicide. The High Court committed an error in quashing criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
10. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The High Court ought not to have quashed the proceedings at this stage, scuttling a full-fledged trial in which Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would have a fair opportunity to prove their innocence."
16. In view of the aforesaid principles, I have gone through the evidence available on record and on careful perusal of the documents filed with the revision petition, particularly, the charge-sheet, prima facie, well founded the case for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC, is made out against the petitioners for framing the charges. At the stage of framing the charges, the Court cannot apply its judicial mind for scrutinizing the fact as to whether that the evidence available on record is sufficient for conviction or not. In a case, pertaining to the revision under Section 306 of IPC, the view of this Court in the case of Ravi Kumar Pandey vs. State of M.P. [2018 Law Suit MP 2190] is worth to refer here as under:-.
"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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 8 constituting the offence alleged 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 a g a in st framing of charge. Hence, the revision is dismissed summarily."
17. Having said that this is a case where relentless tyranny was said to be operated by petitioners with the deceased. On this aspect, in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:-
"Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, creates 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."
18. In the case at hand, it is emanated from suicide note, which contains five pages, that the petitioners had, by their act and consecutive course Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 9 of conduct, constituted such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option, except to commit suicide. On the grounds of these repeated ferocious acts of petitioners, an "instigation" may have to be inferred by the learned trial Court while framing the charges under Section 306 of IPC.
19. On this aspect, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court regrading framing of charges is also worth to be considered. in this regard, the view of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kapur vs. Ramesh Chander [2022 (9) SCC 460, is pertinent to quote here as under:-
"Th e jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non- compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily..................."
20. Further, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Fateh Karan Mehdu [2017 (3) SCC 1998, the apex Court has observed as under:-
"2 6 . The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC has been time and Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 10 again explained by this Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397 CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence, which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of charge is not a stage, at which stage final test of guilt i s to be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion in entirety as well as the material available on record, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
2 2 . At this stage, this revision petition filed by the petitioners fails. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned trial Court is affirmed.
23. Pending application, if any, also closed.
24. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM 11 merits of the case and this order shall not be come in the way of the learned trial Court while passing the final judgment.
(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE amit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT KUMAR Signing time: 7/25/2023 7:30:15 PM