Mukesh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Mukesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 20, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1049749

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1049749
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Feb 20, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mukesh

Advocate Shri. B.J.Chourasiya

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....spot. the prosecutrix intimated about the incident to her parents and thereafter, father of the prosecutrix went to the house of the applicants and told about their acts to their parents. in the night, the prosecutrix committed suicide. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent prima facie that the applicants had committed a crime under section 354 of ipc and under the special act. by doing such a crime, it cannot be said that the applicants were intended to abet the prosecutrix for committing suicide. after leaving the spot, there was no overt acts of the applicants that they committed anything with the deceased/prosecutrix. under such circumstances, the overt acts as alleged against the applicants do not fall within the purview of section 107of ipc and therefore, no offence punishable under section 306 of ipc is made out against the applicants. the learned additional sessions judge has committed an error in framing the charges of the offences punishable under sections 306 or 306/34 of ipc. under such circumstances, the revision filed by the applicant can partly be accepted. on the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed. the order dated 4.2.2013 is hereby set aside with the directions that no charges of the offences punishable under sections 306 or 306/34 of ipc are made out against the applicants and they are discharged from the said charges. the learned additional sessions judge is directed to consider the framing of the charges for the remaining offences. he should also follow the procedure under section 228 of cr.p.c., if it is found that case is not exclusively triable by the court of sessions. a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. c.c.as per rules. (n.k.gupta) judge pnkj

Full Judgment

Criminal Revision No.281/2013 20.02.2013 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, counsel for the applicants.

Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

The applicants have challenged the order dated 4.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Bijawar, District Chhatarpur in S.T.No.28/13, whereby various charges were framed against the applicants but at present, the applicant has challenged the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 306/34 of IPC only.

The prosecution's case, in short is that, it is alleged that on 29.11.2012, the applicants had committed an assault on the prosecutrix to outrage her modesty but on her shouting, they left the prosecutrix and ran away from the spot.

The prosecutrix intimated about the incident to her parents and thereafter, father of the prosecutrix went to the house of the applicants and told about their acts to their parents.

In the night, the prosecutrix committed suicide.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent prima facie that the applicants had committed a crime under Section 354 of IPC and under the Special Act.

By doing such a crime, it cannot be said that the applicants were intended to abet the prosecutrix for committing suicide.

After leaving the spot, there was no overt acts of the applicants that they committed anything with the deceased/prosecutrix.

Under such circumstances, the overt acts as alleged against the applicants do not fall within the purview of Section 107of IPC and therefore, no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in framing the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 306 or 306/34 of IPC.

Under such circumstances, the revision filed by the applicant can partly be accepted.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed.

The order dated 4.2.2013 is hereby set aside with the directions that no charges of the offences punishable under Sections 306 or 306/34 of IPC are made out against the applicants and they are discharged from the said charges.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to consider the framing of the charges for the remaining offences.

He should also follow the procedure under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., if it is found that case is not exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and compliance.

C.C.as per rules.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE pnkj

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Mukesh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education