Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 6
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
C.V. Sirpurkar, J.
Jagatlal and others v. State of M.P.
Criminal Revision No.2372 of 2015 (Jabalpur) : against order dated 9.9.2015, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai District Panna in S.T. No.79 of 2015; Decided on 4.1.2016.
Sushri Varsha Kothari for applicants;
Sushri Hemlata Kshatriya, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State;
Shri Pramod Kumar Chaurasiya for respondent No.2/complainant.
Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.397/401 and 161 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.306 r/w S.34 -- offence under -- charge framed challenged under -- cannot be said that accused persons created such a situation where deceased was left no option but to commit suicide -- deceased was probably ultra sensitive to beating and humiliation heaped upon her by accused -- she had option to report matters to police or to take civil action -- no abetment or mens rea on part of accused may be inferred -- no sufficient ground to proceed against applicants -- they are entitled to be discharged -- revision partly allowed -- applicants discharged.
Held : It appears that the deceased was probably ultra-sensitive to the beating and humiliation heaped upon him by the accused persons. As much is evident by her subsequent act of taking his own life by setting herself afire. If the deceased felt humiliated and wronged by the act and conduct of the applicants, she had the option to report the matter to the police, demanding action against the accused persons and even protection for herself. 2005(2) JLJ 224, 1994 JLJ 758, (2001)9 SCC 618, 2010 CrLJ 2110 and (2009)3 SCC 699 distinguished.
naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397@401 rFkk 161 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306 lgifBr /kkjk 34 && mica/k ds v/khu vijk/k && mica/k ds v/khu fojfpr vkjksi vk{ksfir && ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa us ,slh izkfLFkfr l`ftr dh tgk¡ e`rdk ds ikl vkRegR;k dkfjr djus ds flok; dksbZ fodYi ugha cpk && e`rdk vfèklaHkkO; :i ls vfHk;qDr }kjk cgqr vf/kd ekjus&ihVus rFkk vieku fd, tkus ds izfr vfrlaosnu'khy Fkh && mlds ikl ekeys dh fjiksVZ iqfyl esa djus ;k flfoy dkjZokbZ djus dk fodYi Fkk && vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls dksbZ nq"izsj.k ;k vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr gksus dk vuqeku ugha yxk;k tk ldrk && vkosndx.k ds fo#} dk;Zokgh djus ds fy, i;kZIr vk/kkj ugha && os mUeksfpr gksus ds gdnkj gSa && iqujh{k.k va'kr% eatwj && vkosndx.k mUeksfprA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g n`";eku gS fd e`rdk vf/klaHkkO; :i ls vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa }kjk cgqr vf/kd ekjus&ihVus rFkk vieku fd, tkus ds izfr vfrlaosnu'khy FkhA ,slk gh mlds }kjk Lo;a dks vkx yxkdj Lo;a dk thou ysus ds i'pkr~orhZ dk;Z ls lqO;Dr gSA ;fn e`rdk us vkosndx.k ds dk;Z rFkk vkpj.k ls viekfur rFkk xyr eglwl fd;k rks mlds ikl ekeys dh fjiksVZ iqfyl esa dj vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds fo#} dk;Zokgh djus dh rFkk Lo;a dh lqj{kk djus dh ek¡x dk Hkh fodYi FkkA 2005 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 224] 1994 ts ,y ts 758] ¼2001½ 9 ,l lh lh 618] 2010 lhvkj ,y ts 2110 rFkk ¼2009½ 3 ,l lh lh 699 izHksfnrA
¼iSjk 17 ,oa 18½
1. This criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the applicants Jagatlal, Omkar, Kallu, Anil, Savita, Vimla and Manisha is directed against the order dated 9.9.2015 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pawai, District- Panna, in S.T.No.79/2015, whereby learned trial Judge has framed a charge against the accused persons for the Offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC.
2. The Case of the Prosecution before learned trial Judge may briefly be summarized as hereunder :
Applicants-accused persons are members of the extended family of deceased Indrawati. The deceased and the accused persons were neighbours in a village Hardua. The accused persons used to utilize the piece of land belonging to the deceased Indrawati as a passage for ingress and egress to their house. This led to a dispute between the deceased Indrawati on one hand and accused persons on the other. At around 9:00 a.m on 26.1.2015, accused persons Savita and Vimla had passed through the dispute passage, whereon, the deceased had asked them not to use that land as a way. consequently, Savita and Vimla had abused Indrawati and had beaten her. On account of aforesaid dispute, the accused persons, Manisha, Jagatlal, Omkar, Kallu, Anil, Savita and Vimla always used to pick quarrel with Indrawati; therefore, Indrawati had become fed-up with frequent quarrels. At around 10:00 a.m at 2.3.2015 accused persons Savita, vimla, Manisha, Jagatlal, Kallu, Anil and Omkar had quarreled with Indrawati, they were pressurizing her to take her report back and had threatened that otherwise they would kill her. All accused persons had abused Indrawati and had beaten her. At that time, Indrawati had run away from the spot and was in terrible anger. At around 3:00 p.m, Indrawati locked herself inside a room in her house and after pouring kerosene upon herself, had set herself ablaze. Her son Bhanu Pratap called his father and uncle, thereafter, the door of the room was broken open and Indrawati was taken to hospital. On her way to hospital, she succumbed to burns suffered by her. Marg intimation was lodged. Investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet against aforesaid applicants-accused persons was filed under section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC. After hearing the applicants, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the applicants as aforesaid.
3. Inviting attention of the Court to various authorities, it has been argued on behalf of the applicant that even if all allegations made against the applicant are taken at their face value, their act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.
4. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State and learned counsel for the respondent Brijpal, husband of the deceased, have supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the applicants-accused persons quarreled with the deceased persistently, resulting in severe mental stress; therefore, the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit suicide.
5. The Court shall first consider whether there is sufficient material on record to proceed against the applicants/accused persons?
6. A perusal of the case diary reveals that the deceased had expired even before reaching the hospital. No suicide note has been left by her. As such, the prosecution case is based almost entirely upon marg intimation lodged by husband of the deceased, statement of witnesses Brajpal, husband of the deceased, Bhanu Pratap, son of the deceased, Shambhu Prasad, father-in-law of the deceased, Ramjanak, brother of the deceased and Shayamlal, father of the deceased, inquest memo and post-mortem report. The post-mortem report reveals that deceased has died of asphyxia resulting from about 90% ante-mortem burns suffered by her. It is not disputed that the deceased committed suicide after pouring kerosene upon her and setting herself afire.
7. A perusal of the statements of aforesaid witnesses recorded under section 1
