( 1 ) THIS revision petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal procedure is directed against the order dated 17-10-2005 in Sessions Trial No. 130/2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, manawar, District-Dhar, whereby trial Court had directed framing charges against the petitioner under Section 306 of the IPC.

( 2 ) AS per the final report submitted by police Manawar, District-Dhar before the learned Lower Court the case of the prosecution was that on 21-2-2005 when basanti Bai D/o Bhangda Bhil aged about 16 years of village Piplaj was attending natural call in the forest, then petitioner came there and caught hold of the girl with intend to outrage her modesty and tried to snatch her towards Nala. The said Basanti bai was opposing the act of the petitioner. At that time Surbai W/o Mohan Bhil aged about 20 years, and younger sister of basanti Bai, Rumu Bai D/o Bhangda Bhil aged 11-12 years, who were also attending natural call had witnessed the incident. Both of them pelted stones on petitioner and thereafter petitioner left Basanti Bai and ran away from the place of incident. The incident was narrated by the said eye-witnesses to the parents of Basanti Bai, Basanti Bai also came to know that the witnesses have informed her parents regarding the incident. She felt very much ashamed because of the incident and feeling herself defamed ultimately she committed suicide by hanging with the help of a rope. The matter was reported to the police and Marg No. 17/05 was registered. On enquiry the offences punishable under Section 354,306 of IPC were registered against the petitioner and he was arrested. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, munawar who committed the case for trial to the Court of Session.

( 3 ) AT the time of framing of charge a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner accused that considering the entire circumstances and the evidence available in the case offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the petitioner even prima facie and, therefore, a prayer for discharge was made. Learned trial Court considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and ultimately held that prima facie offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is also made out along with the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC, therefore, charges were framed against the accused petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by this order present revision petition has been filed.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Shri mukesh Sinjoniya submitted that if the entire story of the prosecution is believed even then the necessary ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC are totally missing in his case. He has submitted that for establishing an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, act of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the ipc is required to be established. He has further submitted that two days prior to the alleged suicide? by the deceased Basanti Bai the alleged act of misbehaviour by catching hand of deceased Basanti Bai and trying to outrage her modesty was committed by the accused. On these facts at the most prima facie offence under Section 354 can be said to have been committed by the accused petitioner but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the act of accused petitioner was to instigate the deceased Basanti to commit suicide, therefore, Shri Sinjonia advocate prayed that the order passed by learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law and is required to be quashed so far at It relates to the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned.

( 5 ) LEARNED panel lawyer Shri Joshi appearing for the State submitted that prima facie there is sufficient material available on record to hold accused petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 306, IPC and, therefore, there is scope of interference in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

( 6 ) TO resolve the cont

Click Here to Read the rest of this document