Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Rajendra Singh Lodhi & Othe rs v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Another
Criminal Revision No. 2647 of 2021 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 23.9.2021 passed by the I Additional Judge, Damoh in Sessions Case No. 115/2021; Decided on 16.12.2022
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 397/401 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 306/34 and 107 -- quashing of charge -- S. 107 makes it obligatory for prosecution to show and establish element of instigation -- as per prosecution story, applicant No. 2 assaulted deceased by lathi -- no element of ‘incitement’ or ‘instigation’ on behalf of applicant No. 2 while assaulting -- S. 306 not attracted against applicant No. 2 -- error committed in framing charge u/s. 306/34 of IPC -- set aside. AIR 2002 SC 1998 followed. [Paras 10, 11 & 18
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S. 397/401 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss. 306/34 and 107 -- quashing of charge -- as per prosecution story, applicants No. 1 and 3 pressurized/threatened deceased to settle matter by entering into ‘rajinama’ -- overt act of accused person must be of nature which leaves victim/deceased with no option but to commit suicide -- mounting pressure on deceased to enter into ‘rajinama’ does not fall within ambit of ‘incitement’ or ‘instigation’ -- act of applicants No. 1 and 3 does not attract S. 306 -- in absence of establishing necessary ingredients for attracting S. 306, applicants cannot be compelled to face trial unnecessarily -- error committed in framing charge u/s. 306/34 of IPC -- set aside. (2010) 1 SCC 750 and (2012) 9 SCC 734 followed. ILR (2011) MP 1089 relied on. [Paras 12, 13, 15 & 18
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && èkkjk 397@401 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306@34 rFkk 107 && vkjksi dk vfHk[kaMu & /kkjk 107 esa vfHk;kstui{k ds fy, mdlkgV dk rRo n'kkZuk vkSj fl) djuk ck/;dkj fd;k x;k gS && vfHk;kstui{k dh dgkuh ds vuqlkj vkosnd Ø-2 us e`rd ij ykBh ls geyk fd;k && geyk djrs le; vkosnd Ø-2 dh vksj ls ^míhiu* ;k ^mdlkgV* dk dksbZ rRo ugha && vkosnd Ø-2 ds fo#) /kkjk 306 vkÑ"V ugha && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 306@34 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr dj xyrh dh xbZ && vikLrA , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 1998 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10] 11 ,oa 18
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && èkkjk 397@401 && naM lafgrk] 1860
&& /kkjk 306@34 rFkk 107 && vkjksi dk vfHk[kaMu & vfHk;kstui{k dh dgkuh ds vuqlkj vkosnd Ø-1 vkSj 3 us e`rd ij ^jkthukek* dj ekeys esa le>kSrk djus dk ncko Mkyk@/kedh nh && vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa dk izR;{k ÑR; ,slh izÑfr dk gksuk vko';d ftlls vkgr@e`rd ds ikl vkRegR;k djus ds flok; dksbZ fodYi 'ks"k ugha jgs && e`rd ij ^jkthukek* djus ds fy, ncko Mkyuk ^míhiu* ;k ^mdlkgV* dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk && vkosnd Ø-1 vkSj 3 ds ÑR; ls /kkjk 306 vkdf"kZr djus ds fy, vko';d la?kVd fl) fx, tkus ds vHkko esa vkosndx.k dks vuko';dr% fopkj.k dk lkeuk djus ds fy, foo'k ugha fd;k tk ldrk && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 306@34 ds v/khu vkjksi fojfpr dj xyrh dh xbZ && vikLrA ¼2010½1 ,l lh lh 750 rFkk ¼2012½9 ,l lh lh 734 vuqlfjrA vkb ,y vkj ¼2011½ ,e ih 1089 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12] 13] 15 ,oa 18
ORDER
1. This revision petition under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is filed to question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 23.9.2021 whereby learned Ist Additional Judge, Damoh in Sessions Case No. 115/21 framed the charge against the applicants.
2. In nutshell the case of prosecution is that a ‘merg’ intimation No. 106/20 regarding death of Murat Singh was recorded at P.S. Pathariya. During the investigation, the Police recorded the statements of relatives of deceased and other persons. The Police filed the charge sheet under section 306 of IPC.
3. As per the story of prosecution, on 29.10.2020 at around 5 p.m., the applicant No. 2, Bhupendra Singh Lodhi abused and assaulted the deceased Murat Singh by means of a ‘Lathi’. He instantaneously reported said incident in the Police Station. At around 7.30 p.m., when Murat Singh returned home, it is alleged that the applicants No. 1 and 3 pressurized him to compromise the matter and further threatened him of dire consequences. Murat Singh consumed ‘Sulphas’, a poisonous substance and committed suicide. In turn, after investigation, charge sheet (Annexure A-1) was filed. The charges under section 306/34 of IPC were framed by the Court below by order dated 23.9.2021.
4. Shri Sachin Shukla for the applicant no. 2 urged that the dying declaration of Murat Singh dated 29.10.2020 shows that Bhupendra Singh allegedly assaulted him by means of ‘lathi’. Learned counsel for the applicant No.2 urged that an assault by means of lathi nowhere indicates that it can become reason for committing suicide. Thus, the applicant no.2 is incorrectly arraigned for committing offence under section 306/34 of IPC.
5. Similarly, Shri Datt submits that the second part of incident is when after lodging the report in the Police Station, Murat Singh reached his house, the applicants No. 1 and 3 allegedly pressurised him for entering a ‘Rajinama’/compromise. Even assuming that the story so narrated in the dying declaration is correct, it does not attract section 306 of IPC. Widow of Murat Singh namely Guddi Bai in her statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. tried to improve the case. If her statement is compared with dying declaration the embellishment will be apparent.
6. Shri Datt referred section 107 of IPC and urged that in the instant case necessary factors to attract section 106 or section 306 of IPC are absent. Thus, the Court below has committed an error in framing charge against the applicant. In support of his argument, Shri Datt placed reliance on (2010) 1 SCC 750 (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) and in Hukum Singh Yadav and anr. v. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 1089.
7. Per contra, Shri A.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the State urged that Court below has not committed any error of fact or law in framing the charge by order dated 23.9.2021. It is argued that dying declaration shows that applicant No. 2 has caused a lathi injury on deceased Moorat Singh. After lodging report about said incident when he came to his house, the applicants No. 1 and 3 came there and further threatened him. Since, no action was taken by police and Moorat Singh had no option but to commit suicide, he took that extreme step. Thus, it cannot be said that necessary factors for invoking section 306 are absent. Shri Baghel, learned Dy. Government Advocate for the State placed reliance on (2012) 9 SCC 734 (Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and another).
8. Shri Raghuveer Prasad Prajapati, learned counsel for the objector/respondent No. 2 borrowed the argument of Govt. counsel and argued that trial is in progress. Certain prosecution witnesses have already deposed their statements. The Court below best suited to take decision on merits.
9. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
10. Section 107 of IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to show and establish the element of instigation. The apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Se
Section 107 of I.P.C reads as abetment of a thing.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of specific intent and the absence of evidence of instigation or intentional aid in the commission of suicide under Section 306 of ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for abetment under Section 306 of IPC, there must be proof of active instigation or intentional aid, and a scrupulous examination of facts and....
Abetment of suicide under IPC requires clear mens rea and active instigation, which was not proven in this case.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
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
