Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 593
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushil Kumar Palo, J.
Makhan and others. v. State of M. P.
Criminal Revision No. 3260 of 2017 (Jabalpur): against the order dated 29.8.2017 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2017; Decided on 6.9.2018
Ms. Shweta Yadav for applicants;
S. D. Khan, Government Advocate for respondent/State.
Headnote:(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 306 r/w S.107 -- quarrel between deceased and accused -- all accused beat him -- before this, deceased was abused and beaten many times by accused -- committed suicide by jumping before running train -- entire prosecution story taken at its face value, indicates that there could be some disputes with accused -- but that accused instigated or goaded deceased to commit suicide, is completely missing. (2001)9 SCC 607 and (2010)1 SCC 750 followed. 2008(III) MPWN 8 and 2016 (II) MPWN 135 relied on. [Paras 3 & 11
(2) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- Ss. 397 and 401 -- intermediate stage of trial is inherent in the High Court on broad principle that in case allegations in FIR or criminal complaint prima facie do not disclose offence, accused should not be made to suffer agony of legal proceeding. AIR 2013 SC 506 followed. [Para 19
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306 lgifBr /kkjk 107 && e`rd vkSj vfHk;qäx.k ds e/; >xM+k && lHkh vfHk;qäx.k us mls ihVk &&blds iwoZ] vfHk;qäx.k }kjk vusd ckj e`rd dks xkfy;k¡ nh xbZ vkSj ihVk x;k pyrh Vªsu ds lkeus dwn dj vkRegR;k dh && vfHk;kstui{k dh laiw.kZ dgkuh T;ksa&dh&RkSa eku yh tk, rks minf'kZr fd vfHk;qäx.k ls dqN fookn jgs gksaxs && ijarq vfHk;qDrx.k us e`rd dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, mdlk;k ;k izsfjr fd;k] bldk iw.kZr% vHkko gSA ¼2001½9 ,l lh lh 607 rFkk ¼2010½1 ,l lh lh 750 vuqlfjrA 2008¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 8 rFkk 2016¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 135 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 3 ,oa 11
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 397 rFkk 401 && fopkj.k dk e/;orhZ izØe mPp U;k;ky; esa bl O;kid fl)kar ij varfuZfgr gS fd izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVZ ;k nkafMd ifjokn ds vfHkdFkuksa ls izFken`"V~;k vijk/k izdV ugha gksus dh n'kk esa vfHk;qä dks fof/k dk;Zokgh dh ;a=.kk Hkksxus dks etcwj ugha djuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 2013 ,l lh 506 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19
1. This revision has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC, wherein challenge has been made to order dated 29.8.2017 passed by IIIrd A.S.J., Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 131/2017, whereby the learned trial Court has framed charges for offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC against the applicants/accused persons.
2. Bereft of the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for the disposal of this revision are that, Makhan Singh informed the Police, Naryawali on 17.2.2015 that, his cousin Nannu @ Nandram Yadav died due to crush by the train near village Bhatua. The dead body was lying in the railway track. Merg No. 04/2015 was lodged. During the inquest statements of Makhan Singh, mother of deceased Radha Rani, brother of deceased Ramji, Rakesh Yadav, Satyanarayan Yadav, Rambaran Yadav, Rohan Singh Yadav and others recorded, other witnesses Ramnath, Kissu @ Kesav, Narendra and Jagbhan were also recorded. Call details were traced.
3. After the inquest, it was found that the deceased and the accused persons were having a land dispute. On 16.2.2015, deceased Nannu @ Nandram had gone to a place at Naryawali for meals (pangat) along with the accused persons. There was a quarrel between Nannu @ Nandram with the accused persons Ramadhar Yadav, Kamlesh Yadav, Makhan Yadav and Shriram Yadav. All the accused persons beaten him near Samos railway crossing, Naryawali. Before this incident, Nannu @ Nandram was abused by obscene words and beaten many times by the accused persons. Therefore, Nannu @ Nandram was sad and thinking of committing suicide. On 17.2.2015 during the afternoon, Nannu @ Nandram committed suicide by jumping before the running train at village Bhatua because of the harassment and instigation caused by the accused persons. Nannu @ Nandram was abetted to commit suicide. Hence, FIR was lodged on 31.12.2016 for offence under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC.
4. It is also found in the investigation that on 17.2.2015 at about 12.00 p.m. Nannu @ Nandram called witness Makhan Singh and asked him to put balance in his cell phone. Therefore, he put Rs.20/- balance in the account of cell phone of Nannu @ Nandram. When Makhan asked Nannu @ Nandram where is he, Nannu @ Nandram informed that he is going to commit suicide by jumping before the running train. On asking where is he now, Nannu @ Nandram did not reply. After sometime when he rang-up, the cell phone of Nannu @ Nandram was replied by another person. That person informed him that Nannu @ Nandram is dead. He has been cut by the train near Bhatua railway line. He rushed to the railway line near Samos railway crossing along with Ramji Yadav and saw the dead body of Nannu @ Nandram. There were having received injuries on his body.
5. The postmortem report of deceased Nannu @ Nandram dated 18.2.2015 reveal that death occurred due to injury to brain. His head was damaged from right side. Internal organs of head and brain have damaged. Femur bone fractured. No other external injuries were present.
6. On behalf of the petitioners, it is claimed that framing of charge against the applicants is bad in law because there is no prima facie evidence available against the applicant. The FIR and statement of witnesses indicate that there is no harassment and the applicants have been falsely implicated. The investigation agency and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence, which the applicants have not been committed. The incident allegedly took place on 16.2.2015 and the FIR has been lodged on 31.12.2017, after lapse of about two years. There was no abetment to commit suicide. The prosecution of the applicants would be abuse of the process of the Court and it is necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. Charges framed should be set aside.
7. On behalf of the respondent-State, the application is vehemently opposed and it is contended that the applicants were having dispute of land beca
