AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 468 wordsN.P. Singh, J.
This revision application is directed against the order dated 16-12-1993, passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 1993, whereby cognizance u/s 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the applicant, for suggesting suicide to the deceased Shiv Kumar.
The prosecution case which has given rise to this revision application are that the applicant and Shiv Kumar since deceased both were in love with one Sushila Bai wife of Megraj Thakur. On 13-6-1992 there was quarrel between the applicant and Shiv Kumar, the two paramours of Sushila Bai over keeping her. In course of the quarrel the applicant said that the matter would be finally settled on the very same day and he taunted at the deceased to go and die. Sushila Bai is also alleged to have taunted at the deceased in the same words. Sometime thereafter Shiv Kumar committed suicide on account of frustration and incitement.
The report of the incident was lodged at the police station on the very same day. The police after investigation sent up Sushila Bai to face trial for the offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After the cognizance and commitment the case came up for disposal before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur. The learned trial Judge on the application filed by the prosecution passed the impugned order taking cognizance against the applicant u/s 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Shri L. S. Baghel, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that no offence of abetment is made out against the applicant. Mere use of some words will not amount an instigation, incitement or advice to do a thing. The contention of Shri Baghel is not tenable.
It is evident that an atmosphere of frustration in love was created in the mind of the deceased by the applicant. The taunting words used by the applicant caused depression in the mind of the deceased and drove him to take the extreme step to put an end to his life by committing suicide.
In case of Raghunath Dass v. Emperor AIR 1920 Pat 502 it has been observed :
"Instigation necessarily indicates some active suggestion, or support or stimulation to the commission of the act itself, and advice can become an instigation only if it is found that it was an advice which was meant actively to suggest or stimulate the commission of an offence."
For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order taking cognizance against the applicant for an offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no merit in this revision application. Accordingly it is dismissed.