Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
U. C. MAHESHWARI, J.
SACHIN TAMRAKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 1948 of 2010
Decided On : 02-09-2011
Abetment - Suicide - Indian Penal Code - Section 306, Section 107
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was charged under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the suicide of a young woman. The applicant argued that there was no evidence of abetment against him, including the absence of instigation or aid to commit suicide. The prosecution contended that the applicant's behavior led to the deceased feeling insulted and humiliated, ultimately leading to her suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was prima facie evidence of abetment in the charge-sheet, as the deceased was regularly subjected to harassment and humiliation by the applicant, leading to her suicide. The court also held that the applicant's failure to inform anyone about the deceased's suicidal note constituted abetment.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether there was sufficient evidence of abetment under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the applicant's actions constituted instigation or aid to commit suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of section 306 and section 107 of the Indian Penal Code to determine the elements of abetment to commit suicide. It emphasized that the behavior of the accused, leading to the deceased feeling insulted and humiliated, constituted instigation for suicide.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision, holding that there was no error in framing the charge against the applicant, as there was prima facie evidence of abetment to commit suicide.
JUDGMENT :
1. On behalf of the applicant-accused, this revision is directed under section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the order dated 11-11-2010 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track), Katni in ST. No. 243/10 framing the charge against the applicant for the offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on dated 6-8-2010 at about 9.30 on receiving the information from one Manoj Kumar regarding unnatural death of Ku. Meghna a merge intimation bearing No. 63/10 was registered at P. S. Kuthla. As per averments of such inquest at about 2.45 in the noon on dated 5-8-2010 said Meghna had committed suicide by hanging in her home.
3. In the course of enquiry of inquest report on making the interrogation from the parents, brother and relatives of the deceased-Meghna, it was revealed that accused being resident of same village used to humiliate and harass her regularly with funny acts by which she felt herself humiliated and under such instigation and abetment of the applicant committed suicide by hanging in her home, on which the FIR was registered at the same Police Station on 15-9-2010 against the applicant for the abovementioned offence. In the course of interrogatory statements of the parents of the deceased namely Vinod Kumar Gupta and Premila Gupta, brother Mayank Gupta, the nearest Neeraj relatives Manoj Kumar and Pushpalate, Subhdeo Nayak, Ramesh and Pradeep Kumar were recorded. On completion of the investigation, the applicant was charge-sheeted for such offence. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, considering the charge-sheet, the charge of section 306 of Indian Penal Code was framed against the applicant. He abjured the same. Thereafter being dis-satisfied with such order has come to this Court with this revision for quashment of the charge.
4. Shri Aditya Sharma, learned appearing counsel for the applicant after taking me through the papers of the charge-sheet along with the impugned order and also the papers, which are not the part of charge-sheet, placed on behalf of the applicant on record said that on taking into consideration the face value of the prosecution case as it is, even then the applicant could not be convicted for the abovementioned offence as any of the ingredients of the abetment as defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code are not made out against him. By referring the interrogatory statements of brother and other relatives and neighbourers recorded under section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code said that on such statements also the ingredients of abetment have not been established. Thus, in the lack of such prima facie evidence the aforesaid charge framed by the trial Court is not sustainable. In continuation he said that there is no evidence in the charge-sheet showing the applicant has instigated to the deceased by committing or practicing any funny acts with her which could be deemed to be sufficient to commit the suicide. Merely on the the fact committing suicide by Ku. Meghna, the charge of alleged offence could not be sustained against him. He further said that before committing suicide the deceased Ku. Meghna in her life time had given a written note like suicidal note, Annexure A-2 to the applicant contending in Hindi Language that she is writing the same in her full conscience and she being 18 years of the age has absolute right on her life and because of the torture of the family members and the community, she is committing suicide. The same was also signed by the deceased. Although such document was not seized by the Police during investigation, therefore, same was not filed as part of the charge-sheet, but subsequent to death of Ku. Meghna along with a report in writing a copy of such note was given to the Superintendent of Police, Katni on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to make proper enquiry regarding death of Ku. Meghna. In this respect he also said that on taking in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
