2016 Supreme(Raj) 1587
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Bajrang Lal and others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1096 of 2014.
Decided On : 22-08-2016
Advocates:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ankush Sharma, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Anil Yadav, Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dhoop Singh Poonia, Advocate.
At the stage of framing of charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the evidence would not warrant a conviction. If the court thinks that the accused prima facie might have committed the offense, it can frame the charge.
Headnote:
ABETMENT OF SUICIDE - SECTION 306 IPC - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - STAGE OF FRAMING OF CHARGE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were charged with abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The deceased, Mahendra Singh, had allegedly committed suicide due to persistent harassment and threats from the petitioners to return a room that he had purchased from one of them.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the petitioners were persistently harassing the deceased and giving him threats, which could have led him to commit suicide. The court also held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the evidence would not warrant a conviction. If the court thinks that the accused prima facie might have committed the offense, it can frame the charge.
Issues: 1. Whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the petitioners had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 2. Whether the court erred in framing the charge for abetment of suicide against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that abetment of suicide requires proof of instigation or incitement by the accused that resulted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. 2. The court held that the evidence on record, including the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, was sufficient to show that the petitioners had persistently harassed and threatened the deceased, which could have led him to commit suicide. 3. The court held that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the evidence would not warrant a conviction. If the court thinks that the accused prima facie might have committed the offense, it can frame the charge.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners, upholding the order of the trial court to frame the charge for abetment of suicide against them.
JUDGMENT
1. - The accused-petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.7.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No.45/2013 whereby the learned trial Court ordered to frame charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioners.
2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that FIR No.70/2012 came to be registered at Police Station Malsisar (District Jhunjhunu) for the offences under Sections 143 and 306 IPC on the basis of a written complaint filed by Smt. Vimla Devi wife of deceased-Shri Mahendra Singh. In the report it was alleged that petitioners and some other persons named in it threatened the deceased with dire consequences if he fails to deliver back the room which the deceased purchased from petitioner-Shri Sahdev after paying sale consideration and, therefore, they instigated the deceased-Shri Mahendra Singh to end his life by committing suicide on 27.5.2012. It is to be noted that petitioners-Shri Bajrang Lal, Manphool and Sahdev are real brother of the deceased while petitioner-Smt. Bhagoti Devi is wife of petitioner Shri Sahdev. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners for offence under Section 306 IPC and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties ordered to frame charge for the aforesaid offence against the petitioners.
3. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for an offence to be made out for offence under Section 306 IPC it is to be shown that the accused abeted the deceased to commit suicide but in the present case there is no iota of evidence even prima facie to show that petitioners or any of them abeted Shri Mahendra Singh to commit suicide. It was further submitted that whatever evidence is available on record in the present case if accepted as it is even then there is nothing on the basis of that it may be presumed that any instigation or incitement was made by the petitioners that resulted into commission of suicide by Shri Mahendra Singh. It was submitted that at the most prosecution case is that the deceased was threatened by the petitioners to hand over back the possession of the room allegedly purchased by him from one of the petitioners and they asserted pressure upon the deceased for it but that itself is not sufficient to charge and try the petitioners for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It was also submitted that the incident is of 27.5.2012 whereas FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay on 6.6.2012 whereas prior to it Merg Report No.9/2012 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered on 28.7.2012 in which statement of complainant-Smt. Vimla Devi was recorded but no allegation of instigation on the part of the petitioners was levelled resulting suicide by the deceased. It was further submitted that during the course of inquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. statement of complainant-Smt. Vimla Devi was recorded on 2.6.2012 in which allegation was levelled that the deceased has been murdered by the petitioners and thereafter his dead-body was thrown in the well but when no evidence could be collected regarding murder of the deceased by the petitioners, a new story was developed and allegation of threat on the part of the petitioners and other persons was levelled so as to show the death of the deceased as suicide on account of harassment on the part of the petitioners.
4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the cases of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 , Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 249 , M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 and Suraj Karan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2008 (1) Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 165.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported by the learned counsel for the complainant
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
