Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S. K. PALO, J.
MANOJ SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M. P. – Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 46 of 2015
Decided On : 16-07-2015
ABETMENT - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 306, Section 504, Section 506-B - The court discussed the provisions of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines abetment of suicide, and emphasized the elements of instigation and intention in abetment. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to prove that the accused instigated, incited, or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the charge under section 306 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly harassed by the petitioner to vacate a government accommodation, leading to the deceased consuming poison and subsequently committing suicide. The trial court framed charges against the petitioner for offenses under sections 306, 504, and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to indicate that the petitioner instigated, incited, or provoked the deceased to commit suicide, and therefore set aside the charge under section 306 of the IPC.
Issues: The key issue revolved around whether the petitioner's actions constituted abetment of suicide under section 306 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the elements of instigation and intention in abetment under section 306 of the IPC and concluded that there was no material on record to indicate that the petitioner in any manner instigated, incited, or provoked the deceased to commit suicide.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the revision and set aside the charge framed against the petitioner under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, while not interfering with the other charges under sections 504 and 506-B of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
1. This revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 29-12-2014 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 497/2014, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed charges against the petitioner for the offences under sections 306, 504 and 506-B of Indian Penal Code.
2. The factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass.
3. On 9-1-2014 Laxman Batham with Rakesh Batham and Deepak Batham lodged a report under sections 294, 506-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, Gwalior that Deviram Batham was admitted in Birla Hospital on 8-1-2014 he consumed some poisonous substance. He was abused and threatened by accused Manoj Sharma because of which he consumed poison. He died on 10-1-2014 at 04:30 P.M. during his treatment. Therefore, Merg No. 02/2014 was registered under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code.
4. During inquiry, it is found that deceased Deviram was serving in the ITI, Gwalior as Watchman (Chokidar). He was allotted Quarter No. I-5, in which deceased Deviram and his family members were residing. Accused Manoj Sharma is a Clerk in the ITI, Gwalior. He was rebuking the deceased Deviram for vacating the quarter and allegedly was demanding money. It is alleged that petitioner Manoj threatened Deviram to vacate the house. He threatened to kill him if reports the matter to the Police. In the same evening, Deviram came to his home at 05:00 P.M. He was staggering. He was not well and was vomiting. He told his family members that he was threatened by Manoj Sharma to vacate the house and it was Manoj Sharma who harassed him. Because of which, he had consumed poison. Therefore, Police Station Gola Ka Mandir added section 306 of IPC. It is also alleged that during the course of enquiry, a suicide note was also discovered, in which allegedly the deceased has written that the accused Manoj Sharma was demanding money, which he was unable to pay as his salary was very meagre. This letter was seized from Laxman Batham on 10-1-2014.
5. An application under section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the petitioner before the trial Court. The same was dismissed on 3-12-2014. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge on 29-12-2014 for offence under sections 504, 506-B read with section 306 of IPC.
6. The petitioner submitted that Manoj Sharma was serving in the ITI College as Clerk. Deceased Deviram was serving there as a Chokidar (Night Watchman). Deviram was transferred to ITI Khaniyadhana District Shivpuri by order dated 10-7-2005. He was relieved on 8-8-2005. Despite his transfer, he was not vacating the accommodation given to him. Hence, an action was initiated against him. On a letter by the Principal, ITI, Gwalior to the Competent Authority, a proceeding was initiated to vacate the house under the Public Premises Act. Vide order dated 12-9-2008, it was ordered to vacate the home by coercion. This order was to be executed by the Principal of the Central Training Centre, Birla Nagar, Gwalior. Shri G. S. Rajput, Superintendent of the Hospital of Industrial Training, Gwalior was appointed as the Coordinator. Several notices were given to the deceased for vacating the house. It is also claimed that the deceased was in the habit of consuming alcohol. There are complaints against him of misbehaving in the Industrial Training Centre Campus. On 14-2-2013 FIR was also lodged in this regard. He remained absent from duty for several days in different period, for which his salary of December, 2013 was also withheld.
7. In this background, the actions of the petitioner regarding vacating the house on behalf of the Institution was legal. The petitioner did not do anything of his own. The administrative action was being taken by the Institute against the deceased. It is also submitted that at the time of lodging the FIR on 9-1-2014, no suicide note was produced. But, after the death of Devir
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
