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.

JUDGMENT

1. This criminal revision under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 4.2.2020 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, District Morena in Sessions Trial No.82/2019 by which the charges under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC have been framed.

2. The applicant No.1 Smt. Rambai is the mother-in-law whereas the applicant No.2 Smt. Poonam is the younger sister-in-law (Devrani), applicant No.3 Ummed Singh is younger brother-in-law (Devar), applicant No.4 Subedar Singh is father-in-law, applicant No.5 Shishupal @ Banti is husband and applicant No.6 Manorama is Nanad.

3. According to the prosecution case, the deceased Mamta was married to the applicant No.5 Shishupal @ Banti in the year 2005. The deceased was having two children, aged about 10 years and another 5 to 6 years. It is alleged that on 11.4.2018, the deceased Smt. Mamta Sikarwar set herself on fire by pouring kerosene oil on her. She was shifted to CHC Joura and her dying declaration was also recorded. In dying declaration, she stated that she had a fight with her mother-in- law (applicant No.1) and younger sister-in-law (applicant No.2). She further stated that because of her quarrel with applicant No.1, applicant No.2 and applicant No.3, she had set herself on fire and only her husband (applicant No.5) had tried to save her. In pre-MLC, smell of kerosene oil from body was detected and she was referred to Higher Centre Forum for treatment. When the deceased was being taken to Delhi she expired on her way and, accordingly, her dead body was taken to District Hospital, Morena from where a marg intimation was sent to the concerning police station. The applicant No.5 was accompanying the deceased on her way to Delhi. The police registered marg and the postmortem of the deceased was got done. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. A container of green colour was seized on the disclosure made by applicant No.5 and the police after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet for offence under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC.

4. The Trial Court by impugned order dated 4.2.2020 framed charges under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC.

5. Challenging the impugned order passed by the Court below, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that the marriage was performed about 15 years back. From the dying declaration it is clear that the deceased had committed suicide on the domestic issues and if a person is of a higher sensitive in nature, then the offence under Section 306 of IPC would not be made out.

6. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the cases of Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750, State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others reported in (2015) 9 SCC 639 and this Court in the case of Kalyan Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ (Cri.) 115.

7. Per contra, the counsel for the State as well as the complainant submitted that it is incorrect to say that the deceased committed suicide on the domestic issues. There are specific allegation of harassment. Even the applicants were not providing food to the deceased. Since the deceased was being harassed in her matrimonial house, therefore, a Panchayat was convened and as per the decision of the Panchayat, the deceased was sent to Ahmadabad where applicant No.5 was working. She stayed with applicant No.5 for 5 to 6 months.

Thereafter, applicant No.5 ran away after leaving the deceased all alone without leaving any money for her. The deceased informed about her plight and, accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,000/- was deposited in her account by her brother and, accordingly, she somehow managed to come back to Bhind by bus. Thereafter a Panchayat was convened and the applicant No.5 insisted that he would not come to take her but she should be sent to her matrimonial