This revision petition under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. is filed

to question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order

dated 23.9.2021 whereby learned Ist Additional Judge, Damoh in

Sessions Case No. 115/21 framed the charge against the applicants.

2.

In nutshell the case of prosecution is that a ‘merg’ intimation

No. 106/20 regarding death of Murat Singh was recorded at P.S.

Pathariya. During the investigation, the Police recorded the

3

statements of relatives of deceased and other persons. The Police

filed the charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC.

3.

As per the story of prosecution, on 29.10.2020 at around 5

PM, the applicant no. 2, Bhupendra Singh Lodhi abused and

assaulted the deceased Murat Singh by means of a ‘Lathi’. He

instantaneously reported said incident in the Police Station. At

around 7.30 PM, when Murat Singh returned home, it is alleged that

the applicant nos. 1 and 3 pressurized him to compromise the matter

and further threatened him of dire consequences. Murat Singh

consumed ‘Sulphas’, a poisonous substance and committed suicide.

In turn, after investigation, charge sheet (Annexure A-1) was filed.

The charges under Section 306/34 of IPC were framed by the Court

below by order dated 23.9.2021.

4.

Shri Sachin Shukla for the applicant no. 2 urged that the dying

declaration of Murat Singh dated 29.10.2020 shows that Bhupendra

Singh allegedly assaulted him by means of ‘lathi’. Learned counsel

for the applicant no.2 urged that an assault by means of lathi

nowhere indicates that it can become reason for committing suicide.

Thus, the applicant no.2 is incorrectly arraigned for committing

offence under Section 306/34 of IPC.

5.

Similarly, Shri Datt submits that the second part of incident is

when after lodging the report in the Police Station, Murat Singh

reached his house, the applicant nos. 1 and 3 allegedly pressurised

him for entering a ‘Rajinama’/compromise. Even assuming that the

story so narrated in the dying declaration is correct, it does not

attract Section 306 of IPC. Widow of Murat Singh namely Guddi

Bai in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. tried to

4

improve the case. If her statement is compared with dying

declaration the embellishment will be apparent.

6.

Shri Datt referred Section 107 of IPC and urged that in the

instant case necessary factors to attract Section 106 or Section 306

of IPC are absent. Thus, the court below has committed an error in

framing charge against the applicant. In support of his argument,

Shri Datt placed reliance on (2010) 1 SCC 750 (Gangula Mohan

Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh) and in Hukum Singh Yadav

and anr. Vs. State of M.P. reported in I.L.R. (2011) M.P. 1089.

7.

Per contra, Shri A.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the State

urged that Court below has not committed any error of fact or law in

framing the charge by order dated 23.09.2021. It is argued that dying

declaration shows that applicant No. 2 has caused a lathi injury on

deceased Moorat Singh. After lodging report about said incident

when he came to his house, the applicant No. 1 and 3 came there

and further threatened him. Since, no action was taken by police and

Moorat Singh had no option but to commit suicide, he took that

extreme step. Thus, it cannot be said that necessary factors for

invoking Section 306 are absent. Shri Baghel, learned Dy.

Government Advocate for the State placed reliance on (2012) 9

SCC 734 (Praveen Pradhan Vs. State of Uttaranchal and

another).

8.

Shri Raghuveer Prasad Prajapati, learned counsel for the

objector/respondent No. 2 borrowed the argument of Govt. counsel

and argued that trial is in progress. Certain prosecution witnesses

have already deposed their statements. The Court below best suited

to take decision on merits.

5

9.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

10.

Section 107 of IPC makes it obligatory for the prosecution to

show and establish the element of ins