RAVINDRA KUMAR MISHRA vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

This revision application takes exception to the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial No.147/2014 whereby framing charges under Section 306, in alternative, Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ''IPC'').

The facts in short are that, the deceased Vineeta wife of applicant No.1-Santosh Singh was residing in her matrimonial house. On 13.06.2014 Vineeta was carried to the hospital by the applicants for treatment of burn injuries sustained by her from gas stove while using it at home. Since the injuries were severe in nature, therefore, the police was informed about the same. The dying declaration was recorded and later Vineeta died on account of the burn injuries. F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Ashoknagar bearing Crime No.414/2014 for commission of offence under Section 306, 34 of IPC upon receiving the complaint from the family members of the deceased. After completion of

investigation, the chargesheet was submitted before the competent Court.

The trial court on perusal of the chargesheet concluded that the material available on record is enough for framing charges punishable under Section 306, in alternative, Section 302 and 498-A of IPC against the applicants/accused.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the family members of the deceased, whereas, the dying declaration reveals the truth that, the deceased sustained burn injuries due to an accident. Further, the material on record nowhere reflects abetment by the applicants to attract charge punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Similarly, the prosecution story does not support any theory by which the charge under Section 302 of IPC can be attracted.

To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly make out the charges against the applicants and the abetment is clear from the fact that the applicant No.1 had illicit relation with his sister-in-law, which instigated the deceased Vineeta to commit suicide. Accordingly, it is submitted that the revision application is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the rival contention and perused the record. The chargesheet falls short of satisfying the ingredients of charges punishable under Section 306, in alternative, Section 302 of the IPC. The circumstances which have been alleged regarding on the applicant

No.1''s having illicit relationship, presumably led the deceased to commit suicide. However, this circumstance is not enough to frame charge under Section 306 of IPC as it is well established proposition of law that the words ''reason'' to commit suicide and ''abetment'' to commit suicide are two different prepositions and thus, the chargesheet must spell out the manner in which the applicants abeted the deceased into committing suicide, which is absent in the facts of the present case.

Further, the chargesheet also does not justify framing of charge under Section 302 of the IPC. No theory had been suggested regarding the manner in which commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has taken place. However, with respect to the charge framed under Section 498-A of the IPC, the statement filed alongwith chargesheet does satisfy the ingredients and thus, trial Court did not commit any illegality in framing the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC.

In order to fortify the reasoning given above, the observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. Sate of A.P. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 750 are relevant, which are as under :- 16. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person''s suicidability patter is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it

is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

Further, power of discharge by the Court has been discussed in the judgment by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Baalu vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135, in which it has been held as under :- Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial (See Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another (1979 3 SCC 5).

The consideration and the observation made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the context of facts of this case supports the reasoning given above. Accordingly, the instant revision application is allowed in part and the impugned order dated 14.09.2015 is set aside to the extent it relates to framing of charge under Section 306 of the IPC, in alternative, Section 302 of the IPC. However, the trial with respect to the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC shall continue according to law without being influenced by the observations made herein above.