IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA st ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1333 of 2022 BETWEEN:-

ASHISH PATEL S/O SHRI RAMESHWARI PATEL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/O VILLAGE BAMURHA P.S. AMANGANJ DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI VINEET MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION DEVENDRA NAGAR DISTRICT PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. BAHADUR SINGH BARIWA S/O SHRI B.L. BARIWA R/O POSTED SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER POLICE PANNA KOTWALI PANNA DISTRICT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (SHRI AMIT BHURRAK - PANEL LAWYER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This revision is directed against the order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in S.T. No.165 of 2021 whereby charges for the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act have been framed against the applicant.

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 10.09.2021 at 8 PM obscene Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL photographs and videos of the deceased were got viral through WhatsApp to her husband and other relatives. Due to which, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. After filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Panna. After committal proceedings, by the impugned order, the aforesaid charges have been framed against the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, no charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the present applicant. The material available on record does not show the involvement of the present applicant. He has placed reliance upon certain judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of M. Mohan vs. State through Deputy Superintendent of Police, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238, Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of W.B. reported in AIR 2010 SC 512) and Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Senger vs. State of M.P. 2002(2) JLJ 275 and has argued that no ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicant. The allegation against the present applicant is that he had stolen the mobile of the deceased and has viral the obscene videos and photographs of the deceased causing mental agony and torture resulting into her death. It is argued that the death has not taken place immediately after the videos and photographs gone viral, infact there is serious doubt regarding viralling of the videos and photographs by the present applicant. A panchayat was constituted and the husband of the deceased has refused to take her to his house. Therefore, she was under immense mental pressure and she has committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. No other material is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHEEL available on record against the applicant.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed contentions and submitted that there are sufficient materials available on record against the present applicant. There are specific allegation of stealing the mobile of the deceased and then viraling the obscene videos and photographs pertaining to illicit relationship of the applicant with the deceased to her relatives which has created the entire mis. She was under depression and was mentally torture because of viraling of the videos and photographs by the present applicant. It is argued that there is a statement of the witnesses which is recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which clearly shows the viraling of the videos and photographs was done by the applicant from the mobile of the deceased which was stolen by him. There is a complaint made by the father of the deceased with respect to stolen mobile,