IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Hiralal Ahirwar & Others – Applicants
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 3144 of 2022
Decided On : 12-11-2024
ORDER :
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Despite serving notice upon the respondent No. 2, nobody came forward to argue this matter on her behalf and hence it is heard finally on the basis of material available on record.
2. This revision is under Section 397 /401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the validity of the order passed by the trial court on 05.07.2022 framing charge against the applicants under Section 306 /34 of IPC.
3. As per the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected by the prosecution and submitted before the trial court alongwith the charge sheet filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., the trial court at the time of framing the charge did not appreciate the facts of the case in proper manner and failed to see that even prima-facie no case under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants because the material ingredients for forming the said offence are completely missing in the case and therefore the impugned order of framing charge is liable to be set aside and applicants are liable to be discharged from the said charge.
4. As per the facts of the case, at GRP Station Gadarwara, on the basis of an information received through memo on 05.02.2022, a Murg was registered vide Murg No. 3/2022 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and an enquiry was conducted because a body of unknown person was recovered near start signal of railway station of Salichowka up-yard and it was informed that a person had committed suicide by jumping in front of train No. 12192. After preparing Panchnama, postmortem was done in a government hospital of Salichowka and a report was submitted, as per which, the death occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased in a train accident and on 06.02.2022 the said body was identified to be of one Kamta Prasad Ahirwar, son of Netram Ahirwar, aged about 50 years, r/o Ward No. 9, Patel Ward, Kherua, Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur.
5. During the course of enquiry it was gathered that on 05.02.2022 in the house of one Purshottam Ahirwar 13th day ceremony (Terhi) was being organized in which the deceased was humiliated and nobody had permitted him to freely participate in the said function because his son namely, Rajesh Ahirwar got married with a girl of Basor community. The deceased was told that due to marriage of his son with a girl of Basor community and no decision was taken about them to be included in their community although he was allowed to take food but his son and daughter-in-law would not be allowed to have food with the other members of the community. As per the allegation, feeling humiliated and insulted, the deceased did not eat the meal and went away and committed suicide by jumping in front of a train. As such, the offence under Section 306 /34 got registered against the applicants on the ground that they compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the present case there was disclosure and nobody was knowing the fact as to why the deceased had committed the suicide. It is also a case in which there is no evidence collected by the prosecution to establish that after the alleged incident the deceased had informed anybody that he got humiliated and disturbed by the conduct of the present applicants and because of that he had committed suicide. He has submitted that after the alleged incident, the deceased had also not written any suicide note so as to assign any reason as to what compelled him to take such a drastic step of suicide.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that it is not a case in which the situation is so that the alleged incident had left no other option before the deceased but to commit suicide. He has submitted that it is a case in which it was inferred by the family members of the deceased that the reason for committing suicide by the deceased was none other but an action of misbehaving or insultin
Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another
For framing a charge under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence linking an accused’s actions to the suicide; assumptions of harassment without evidence are insufficient.
Framing charges under Section 306 I.P.C. requires only a presumption of involvement, not definitive proof, relying heavily on the evidentiary weight of disputed documents, such as suicide notes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of statutory law and principles for exercising power under Cr.P.C. in determining the framing of charges under Section 306 of IPC, ....
At the stage of framing charges, even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charges, and the requirement of mens rea for abetment of suicide under IPC 306.
The court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of strong suspicion and examination of circumstances to determine instigation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for concrete evidence to prove the intention of the accused to instigate the deceased to commit suicide, as well as the importance ....
Trial Court has not considered abetment contained in Section 107 IPC while framing charge by passing impugned order and thus committed a blatant illegality and contravened provisions of law, this Cou....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.