Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Ashok Singh @ Kali Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal standards for charge framing (Para 16 , 18 , 24) |
| 4. validity of the suicide note (Para 25) |
| 5. conclusion and order of the court (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the applicant in revision and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.
THE CHALLENGE
2. The instant revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 24.01.2024 whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (P.C. Act), Court No.1, Gorakhpur has framed charge against the applicant under Section 306 I.P.C. in S.C. No. 95 of 2024 (State v. Ashok Singh). Another order under challenge is dated 22.10.2021 whereby the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gorakhpur (‘Magistrate’) had taken cognizance in the matter and summoned the applicant.
BRIEF FACTS
3. As per the case of the applicant, on 02.03.2020, a ward boy of District Hospital, Gorakhpur informed the police that a dead body was kept in mortuary. On his information, police reached on the spot and found a suicide note in the
Framing charges under Section 306 I.P.C. requires only a presumption of involvement, not definitive proof, relying heavily on the evidentiary weight of disputed documents, such as suicide notes.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to prove the intention of the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, as well as the importance ....
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.
At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges, and the requirement of mens rea for abetment of suicide under IPC 306.
Trial Court has not considered abetment contained in Section 107 IPC while framing charge by passing impugned order and thus committed a blatant illegality and contravened provisions of law, this Cou....
Framing of charges requires a prima facie case, without deep analysis of evidence. Harassment contributing to suicide can constitute abetment under IPC.
The assessment of materials at the stage of consideration of charge is different from the appreciation of evidence at the trial stage, and the court must form an opinion based on the available materi....
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
