Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. K. Palo, J.
Rajbhan Saket – Petitioner
Versus
State Of M. P. – Respondent
Cri. R. No. 2298 of 2016
Decided On : 26-09-2016
Abetment - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 306, Section 107 - The court discussed the provisions of section 306 and section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the definition of 'abetment' and 'instigation'. It highlighted the requirement of mens rea and a positive act on the part of the accused to sustain a conviction under section 306. The court referred to previous cases to support its decision and concluded that the evidence did not constitute the offence under section 306 against the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, an Incharge Principal of a school, was charged under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the suicide of a student who had written obscene letters to fellow students and was admonished by the applicant. The student was later found dead by hanging.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence did not establish the essential elements of abetment under section 306 against the applicant, emphasizing the lack of mens rea and a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of 'abetment' under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and whether the actions of the applicant constituted the offence of abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of mens rea and a positive act on the part of the accused to sustain a conviction under section 306. It referred to previous cases to support its decision and concluded that the evidence did not constitute the offence under section 306 against the applicant.
Final Decision: The revision was allowed, and the impugned order framing charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant was set aside.
ORDER :
Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Although the matter is listed today at motion hearing stage, but on the request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing forthwith.
2. This revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed assailing the order dated 16-8-2016 whereby the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Satna Camp Amarpatan has framed charge against the applicant for the offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code in S.T. No. 3400181/2016.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Deepak Kumar was a student in the Higher Secondary School, Village Harrai, District Satna. The applicant was Incharge Principal of the said school in the relevant period. In the said School, girl students namely Priyanka and Kalpana Jaiswal were also studying.
4. Allegedly, the deceased wrote obscene letters to the girl students. Having come to know about the same by a complaint, the applicant-Incharge Principal called the student Deepak Kumar and admonished and also beaten him. It is alleged that on the following day, the deceased Deepak Kumar did not come to the School. Search was conducted by his relatives. Harishankar Tiwari found the dead body of the deceased hanging in a mango tree in the field. The dead body was sent for post-mortem. The medical officer on 12-2-2016 after examination has opined that the deceased died due to Asphyxia, which is result of hanging. No external or internal injuries were found on the body of deceased. After the investigation, the Police Station Ram Nagar filed the charge-sheet. Learned ASJ framed the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the applicant-Incharge Principal of the School.
5. On behalf of the applicant, the impugned order is assailed on several grounds. It is stated that the FIR was lodged after about 3½ months. The applicant is innocent. It is also claimed that the deceased had written a letter in a language, which is derogatory to the co-students. It is also claimed that on a written complaint about the said letter of the deceased, the Incharge Principal intimated the incident to the other staff teachers and also directed to intimate the parents of deceased Deepak Kumar, because it involved the dignity of the School. It is further claimed that general action was taken by the Incharge Principal. Alphabets “RS” were found on the left hand palm of deceased.
6. Counsel for the applicant submits that this writing could have been made later by the family members of the deceased to implicate the applicant and to concoct a false story.
7. Learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondent-State opposed the contentions and submitted that the charge framed is well-merited.
8. To understand this position, it would be appropriate to reproduce section 306 of Indian Penal Code, which reads thus;
9. It is also necessary to understand what actually constitutes “abetment” as has been defined under section 107 of Indian Penal Code, which read as follows :—
10. At the time of framing of charge the material on record has to be considered and no rebuttal evidence can be seen. From the evidence collected by the prosecution, and in absence of any rebuttal, if the accused can be convicted for any particula
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
