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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 27324

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Arun Kumar Sharma, J.
Dr. Taranjeet Gujral – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Criminal Revision | S. T. No.454/2022



The court established that mere allegations do not suffice for a conviction under S.306 IPC; specific evidence of instigation or aiding is necessary to support charges of abetment of suicide.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 294, 452, 506 Part II, 306, and 306/34 - Charges against petitioners for abetting suicide - Insufficient evidence to establish instigation or aiding in suicide - Court must assess culpability and direct act leading to suicide - The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 10, 12, 39, 42)

(B) Abetment of suicide under IPC - Definition of abetment involves intention and active role in instigating suicide - Mere allegations without evidence of instigation insufficient for conviction under S.306 IPC. (Paras 11, 17, 28)

(C) Court’s authority at charge framing - Significant discretion exists to dismiss charges lacking evidentiary support, echoing the presumption of innocence for the accused. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

Table of Content
1. case background and events leading to petition (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments by petitioners vs evidence by state (Para 5 , 6)
3. standards for evidence and burden of proof in criminal law (Para 8 , 10 , 39)
4. principles of abetment under ipc section 306 (Para 11 , 12 , 17 , 40)
5. court's decision to quash charges (Para 42 , 43)

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. By way of this criminal revision under S.397 / 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 , the petitioners have challenged the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, District Jabalpur (M.P.) in S. T. No.454/2022, whereby charges punishable under S.294, S.452, S.506 Part - II and 306 in alternative 306/34 of the IPC have been framed against them.

3. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2021 complainant Gaurav Sahu S/o. Dinesh Sahu lodged a report in the police station Ranjhi to the effect that on 12.10.2021 the deceased Saurabh Sahu who is real brother of the complainant has committed suicide by hanging himself with the help of nylon rope. It is further case of the complainant that petitioner No.1 Dr. Taranjeet Gujral is running his clinic besides the shop of the deceased and petitioner No.1 was interested to run a medical shop in which the deceased was running a medical shop. It is alleged that for getting the shop vacated, petitioner No.1 built a pressure, harassed and annoyed the deceased. On the date of incident i.e. 12.10.2021 petitioner No.1 hurled filthy abuses to the deceased. However, on intervention, the matter was pacified but later - on, in the evening, petitioner No.1 called other accused persons by making a phone call and ultimately, all the accused persons pulled the deceased out of the shop and committed marpeet with him. It is alleged that on account of the alleged marpeet, the deceased was under depression and ultimately, he committed suicide by hanging himself with the help of nylon rope. On receiving information, a merg No.62/2021 under S.174 of Cr.P.C. was registered and the matter was taken into inquiry. Dead - body Panchnama was prepared and dead - body was sent for postmortem after completing all due formalities. According to postmortem report, the cause of death is ante mortem hanging and its consequences. In the internal examination, large amount of alcohol was present with semi digested food material. The deceased died within 24 hours since postmortem examination. In the merg inquiry, it has been found that the accused persons harassed and tortured the deceased for getting the shop - in - question vacated for last two years and the deceased committed suicide because of harassment and acts of all the accused persons including the present petitioners. After completion of merg inquiry, FIR bearing Crime No.1093/2021 was registered at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur for commission of offence under S.452, S.294, S.506, S.306, S.34 of IPC.

4. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused persons before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, who on its turn, sent the case to the competent court for framing charges and ultimately, learned 14th Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur vide impugned order dated 16.12.2022 framed the charges against the accused persons, against which, the present criminal revision has been preferred by them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that prima facie on the facts and evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the case, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioners / accused particularly an offence under S.306 of IPC as there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners in any manner instigated, aided or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. It is further argued that although, it is unfortunate that a life is lost, but there is no evidence at all which is proved on

































































































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
whatsapp-icon Back to top