Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjay Dwivedi
Hiralal Ahirwar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
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 Gadarwa
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....
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
