SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(MP) 61

RAKESH SAKSENA
Babbi @ Jitendra – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Manish Datt for petitioner; A.L. Patel, Government Advocate for State.

ORDER

1. Petitioner have filed this revision against the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 3612006, framing the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prima-facie on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioners, as there is absolutely no evidence to infer that petitioners in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. Merely because the petitioners had grabbed the money of deceased and had assaulted him, it cannot be said that they abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Since no ingredient of abetment is borne out from the facts of the prosecution case, learned trial Court committed error in framing charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the deceased had committed suicide because his money had been held up by the accused Babbi and when he demanded his money back, he was assaulted, due to which, he committed sui




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top