Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Shri Toko Tadap, S/o Toko Rido – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 12 of 2019
Decided on : 28-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B, 498(A), 306, 304 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 227, 401 – Framing of charge – Criminal Revision Petition – Punishment of Criminal conspiracy – Abetment of suicide – Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Legality, propriety and correctness of order – It is to be mentioned herein that vide impugned order, learned Court below has discharged accused Menu, under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. from charge under Section 120B/498(A)/306/34 IPC – Held, Court have also gone through other case laws referred and find that same also supported her submission, but, for sake of brevity, Court not inclined to burden this judgment with discussion of said case laws – Court have also gone through case laws referred, learned counsel for respondents and find that ratio laid down therein proceeds on their own facts and circumstances and are not applicable in all force to facts and circumstances here in this case – Therefore, detailed discussion of same is found to be not necessary herein this case – Thus, materials available on record and in case diary, if taken at their face value, discloses a prima facie case under Sections 120B/498(A)/306/34 IPC against both accused – And when impugned order is tested on touchstone of the principles of framing charges, as discussed herein above, and also in light of facts and circumstances discussed above, Court find that same (impugned order) failed to withstand test of legality, propriety and correctness – And accordingly, Court is constrained to interfere with impugned order – Revision petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 07.09.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia in Sessions Case No. 25/2017 (YPA), in Itanagar P.S. Case No. 145/2016, under Sections 120B/498(A)/306 IPC, in the matter of the State of Arunachal Pradesh –vs- Ramesh Chuku and Chuku Menu, is put to challenge in this revision petition, under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by Shri Toko Tadap, the informant of the case.
2. It is to be mentioned herein that vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2017, the learned Court below has discharged the accused Shri Chuku Ramesh and Chuku Menu, under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. from the charge under Section 120B/498(A)/306/34 IPC.
3. The factual background leading to filing of this revision petition is briefly stated as under:
Lt. Toko Baby was in live in relationship with one Shri Chuku Ramesh and they were husband and wife since the year 2014, and resided at a quarter at Forest Colony, Itanagar. During the said relationship, respondent No.2 -Shri Chuku Ramesh subjected the victim girl to mental anguish and hardship and also cheated her and during their living in quarter at Forest Colony, the petitioner had provided financial assistant by giving a sum of Rs. 10,000/-to 15,000/-per month, for their living expenses. Shri Chuku Ramesh was in the habit of consuming alcohol and he had subjected the victim girl to physical assault and asked her to demand money from her parents and he had another wife and one baby also from that marriage. The petitioner had also purchased one Santro Car and gifted the same to his daughter with hope that Shri Chuku Ramesh would stop subjecting her to mental and physical harassment.
(ii) Then in the month of September, 2014, the younger daughter of the petitioner was admitted at Heema Hospital and then Shri Chuku Ramesh came to the Hospital and threw the key of the Santro Car by saying that he is no longer willing to keep the victim as his wife. But, after 2 to 3 months, Shri Chuku Ramesh, i.e. respondent No.2, along with his mother-Smti. Chuku Menu i.e. respondent No.3, came to the house of the petitioner and beg apology to the family and discussed about their wedding rituals. And the petitioner forgave his son-in-law and accepted him back. But, despite the assurance, Shri Chuku Ramesh continued to subjecting the victim to mental and physical cruelty demanding monetary gains from her family.
(iii) In the month of April, 2016 while Shri Chuku Ramesh was at Kimin and the victim came to stay at the house of the petitioner on 13.04.2016. The victim informed the petitioner that the accused Shri Chuku Ramesh has demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs) to purchase one Tata Sumo. Then on 17.04.2016, the deceased along with her siblings i.e. Toko Meena, Toko Apang and Toko Teni left for the victim’s quarter at Chandan Nagar, Itanagar. Upon reaching, there they found Shri Chuku Ramesh and his mother, and thereafter, they returned home. In the evening of 17.04.2016, Shri Chuku Ramesh and his mother-Smti. Chuku Menu, have leveled accusation that the victim had stolen two numbers of local beads (mala) and cash amount of Rs. 6000/-from the house of the mother of Shri Chuku Ramesh at Kimin in the month of April, 2015 and November, 2015 and also alleged that the victim had given the said amount to one lady as security as she had taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-and they would report the matter to her father i.e. the petitioner about the behavior of his daughter.
(iv) Thereafter, in the morning of 18.04.2016, the two respondents, reached the house of the petitioner and reported him that his daughter had stolen two numbers of local beads and cash amount of Rs. 6000/-from their house at Kimin in the month of April 2015, and November 2015. On hearing the said allegations, the petitioner assured the respond
For framing a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence linking an accused’s actions to the suicide; assumptions of harassment without evidence are insufficient.
To establish a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation or abetment, which can be inferred from the accused's actions that create circumstances leading the victim to commit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strong suspicion and examination of circumstances to determine instigation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for sufficient material to proceed against the accused and the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and evaluate th....
The court upheld the presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, affirming sufficient grounds for framing charges of cruelty and abetment against the petitioners.
The court emphasized the need for a prima facie case to be made out against the accused while framing charges, and the importance of considering the broad probabilities of the case and the total effe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended to instigate the deceased to commit suicide for the offence of abetment....
The court ruled that at the charge framing stage, strong suspicion suffices to proceed against the accused, prioritizing witness testimonies and circumstantial evidence over the need for conclusive p....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
