Back
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY
Viresh Kumar @ Viresh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
1. Heard Mr. Viresh Kumar, in person (Applicant in Application at Serial Nos. 1 & 2 and opposite party no. 2 in Application at Serial No. 3), Mr. Anurag Pathak, learned counsel for (Complainant in Application at Serial Nos. 1 & 2 and Applicant in Application at Serial No. 3) and learned A.G.A for State.
2. The applicant (Viresh Kumar alias Viresh Singh), before this Court is husband of deceased, whose dead body was found, when allegedly applicant returned back after 2 days, from a room of his house, locked from inside. The door was forced open. It was found that door of balcony was also open and fan was running and deceased was found sitting on a sofa having her one leg on centre table.
3. During preparation of inquest report, statement of witness (Ravi Kumar a medicine delivery boy) to the inquest report was recorded that on 17.04.2017 he was asked to supply medicines to applicant’s place by the applicant and on same day he supplied also.
4. Postmortem of dead body was conducted on 20.4.2017 and it was opined that death was occurred about 2 to 3 days prior. Cause and manner of death could not be ascertained, therefore viscera was preserved for che
The court emphasized that at the discharge stage, it must determine if a prima facie case exists based on the prosecution's evidence without assessing its merits.
At the initial stage, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged, and the accused's defense is not to be looked into when seeking discharge under Section 227 of....
(1) Abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide – If accused gave incorrect or false answers during course of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, court can draw adverse inference against him.....
Defective investigation does not preclude prosecution; an accused cannot be discharged solely on this ground if sufficient evidence exists against them.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide; a direct nexus between the accused's actions and the suicide must be established.
Discharge of an accused is justified if there is insufficient evidence to link them to the alleged crime; mere suspicion cannot support a charge under IPC.
At the discharge stage under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the court must consider only the prosecution's materials, and strong suspicion is sufficient to proceed with the trial.
At the initial stage of deciding whether the accused ought to be discharged, the truth, veracity, and effect of the evidence are not to be meticulously judged. The accused has no right to produce any....
At the stage of framing of charge, the court must prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, without appreciating evidence for conviction.
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.
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
