Full Judgment
CRR No.1815/2012 Criminal Revision No.1815/2012 6.2.2014 Shri Sunil Mishra, counsel for the applicants.
Shri S.D.Khan, G.A.for the State/respondent.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the parties, heard them finally.
The applicants have challenged the order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in Special case No.50/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Section 306/34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as 'Special Act') were framed against the applicants alongwith other charges.
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 24.1.2012, a quarrel took place between the applicants and the deceased Neha Sonkar.
The applicants assaulted the deceased Neha and her brother Pankaj by kicks and fists and also threatened her that she would be killed.
Thereafter, Neha committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon her and set her on fire.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the prosecution could not connect the applicants CRR No.1815/2012 with the death of the deceased.
For constitution of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, it is for the prosecution to show that the overt-acts of the accused fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of IPC or there is presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act, so that simple harassment may be considered as an act of abatement to commit suicide.
Under such circumstances, there was no relation to the applicants with the deceased, so that presumption under Section 113-A of Evidence Act could apply.
The overt-acts as alleged against the applicants are that they assaulted the victims by kicks and fists and also gave threat that she would be killed but, if allegation is considered as it is then, it does not fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of IPC.
It is the settled view of Hon'ble the Apex Court that if a person is kept in such a position that he has no option except to commit suicide then, also charges of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC would be made out.
In the present case, the deceased Neha and her brother could lodge the FIR against the applicant for their crime.
It is not a case where the applicants outraged the modesty of the deceased or any rape was committed with her, so that she had no other alternate except to commit suicide.
Under CRR No.1815/2012 such circumstances, in the present case, there was no such situation with the deceased, so that she had no option except to commit suicide.
Consequently, no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants either directly or with help of Section 34 of IPC.
The learned Special Judge has committed an error of law in framing the charges for offence punishable under Sections 306 or 306 read with Section 34 of IPC against the applicants.
Except of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, no other offence is punishable either by sentence of 10 years or life imprisonment and therefore, in absence of charges under Section 306 of IPC, no offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Special Act is made out.
Looking to the error committed by the learned Special Judge, it is a fit case in which an interference is to be done from the side of this Court by way of revision.
Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicants Rahul and Makhan Lal @ Makkhan Gupta is hereby allowed.
The order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jabalpur in Special case No.50/2012 is hereby set aside.
The applicants are discharged from the charges of offence punishable under CRR No.1815/2012 Section 306 or 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The applicants are also discharged from the charges of offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The trial Court is directed to hear the learned counsel for the parties on framing of charges afresh and to proceed further.
If required, the trial Court may proceed under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court, without any delay for information and compliance.
Certified copy as per rules.
(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra