2002 Supreme(MP) 630

Uma Nath Singh, J.
Gajadhar Prasad Patel v. State of M.P.
Cr. Revn. No. 390 of 2002 (J); Decided on 27.6.2002.

Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 227 and 228 -- offence under S. 306, IPC -- no ingredients of S.107, IPC attracting in challan papers -- challan a futile exercise -- framing of charge would affect personal liberty of accused n charge quashed.

        naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 227 rFkk 228 && /kkjk 306] Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds v/khu vijk/k && /kkjk 107] Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds la?kVd pkyku i=ksa us vkdf"kZr ugha && pkyku fujFkZd ifjJe gS && vkjksi dh fojpuk ls vfHk;qDr dh nSfgd Lora=rk izHkkfor gksxh && vkjksi vfHk[kafMrA

       

        This matter is listed after notice for final disposal.

        Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records.

        Shri Singh, learned senior counsel submits that the materials on record filed with challan do not attract any of the ingredients of section 107 IPC, therefore, prima-facie, no case under section 306 IPC is made out; the only material which weighed with consideration of the trial Judge for framing a charge under section 306 IPC is a suicide note which does not ascribe a specific intentional act to facilitate the commission of offence. The suicide note on english translation reads as under:

       "When Shri Madan Patel went to fill up the form against Gajadhar Patel in an election of Surpanch, Gajadhar Patel started sweating, therefore, my cultivation was disturbed and hence I commit suicide. Myself and my entire family members are admitted to Congress Party from today. Till date we had been in Bhartiya Janta Party. His party members Gutbandhi Patel S/o Janki, Jagdish Patel S/o Gutbandhi Patel, Bharat Patel S/o Gutbandhi Patel, Chandra Bha"n Patel S/o Gutbandhi, Ram Charan Patel S/o Gutbandhi Patel, Charan Das Patel S/o Mastram and their wives and entire family." Besides, in the statements under section 161 CrPC filed with challan, except a little change, mainly this suicide note has been repeated.

       Shri Wakil Khan, learned P.L. for the State, though tried his best to justify the framing of charge under section 306 IPC, could not point out any further material from the records of the case to show that the trial of the applicant will not be a futile exercise.

        On considering the rival submissions, and survey of the materials sought to be adduced as evidence against the applicant, it appears that the learned trial Judge has framed the charge in a mechanical manner as the materials on record do not show that the applicant intentionally aided or facilitated the commission of suicide. As framing of charge affects personal liberty of accused, the Court must satisfy itself on the survey of materials on record while framing a charge, by applying the yard stick of a reasonable man and without probing into such materials, that prima facie complicity of the accused in commission of offence is probable.

        Under the circumstances, trial of the accused/applicant for the said charge which is framed without materials to support, would result in miscarriage of justice and, therefore, the same is quashed.

        The criminal revision is allowed.

        For the reasons stated hereinabove, the MCrP No. 1696/02 for stay also falls and is dismissed as infructuous.