Judgment:
CRR No.305/2013 Criminal Revision No.305/2013 13.3.2013 Shri R.S.Patel, counsel for the applicant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent.
As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.
The applicant has challenged the order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Judge to Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in S.T.No.19/2013, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was framed against the applicant.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the deceased was the son of Sunita Bai and Parsuram.
Marriage of the victim Sunita Bai took place in the year 1994 with Parsuram.
Parsuram was intended to open a clinic in the year 1994 but, due to conflict with his father, Parsuram committed suicide in the year 1995 and the victim Sunita Bai was sent to her parents' house, where she delivered the deceased Shubham @ Dipesh.
The applicant and his sons did not give any maintenance or financial help to the deceased or his mother.
A partition took place in the year 2005-06 but, no share was given to the victim Sunita Bai and her son.
Sunita Bai demanded for her share but, the applicant refused CRR No.305/2013 to give any share.
It was alleged that on 7.12.2012, the deceased was sent by his mother Sunita Bai to bring the share from her uncle Ananta and therefore, he went to the village Bada Jhiri and contacted the applicant and his other uncles Bhagwat, Bhagwan and Ishwar.
When he asked for the wheat cultivated in his field, the applicant and his sons shouted upon the deceased and told him that he had not earned any wheat and therefore, he would not be provided any wheat.
If he is unable to fill up his stomach then, he may die.
The deceased went to his house.
The victim Sunita Bai told him not to take any tension but, ultimately on 11.12.2012, the deceased Dipesh committed suicide.
After one month of his death, a complaint was sent by the victim Sunita Bai to the SHO, Police Station Shahpur and thereafter, a case was registered.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is no relation between the deceased and the applicant as such, so that any presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply.
The overt-act of the applicant was that he did not give any share in the crop to the deceased.
It is not alleged against the applicant that he directed the CRR No.305/2013 deceased to commit suicide.
Under such circumstances, the overt-act as alleged against the applicant does not fall within the purview of section 107 of IPC.
Moreover, the deceased committed suicide after 5 days, after returning from the village Bada Jhiri and therefore, it cannot be said the he committed suicide due to that insult caused by the applicant.
Under such circumstances, where the overt-act of the applicant does not fall within the purview of section 107 of IPC, no offence punishable under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error of law in framing the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and therefore, looking to that legal error, an interference is required from the side of this Court, by way of a revision.
Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby partly allowed.
The order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur is hereby partly set aside upto the extend so far it relates to the charge for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.
The applicant is discharged from the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.
CRR No.305/2013 A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra