Judgment:
1. By this revision petition under Section 397 r/w S.401 of the Cr.P.C. accused petitioner Radheshyam has challenged the order dated 02.03.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Sessions Trial No.60/12 framing charges for offence u/S.306 of the IPC against the petitioner.
2. Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 01.01.2011 Sarpanch Radheshyam of village Athawakala received an information that there was a dead body lying near the Balaji Temple near the Jungle. The body belongs to an un known male person and merg was registered at No.21/11 under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. The dead body was identified by the family members to be Kamlesh s/o Heeralal Sharma; aged 40 years, resident of Khajuria, police station Ratangarh, District-Neemuch. The merg intimation upon being investigated, it was found that the deceased Kamlesh had a wife Bhanvaribai, son Sanjay, brother Nandkishore and cousin Prahalad Sharma and Gulab Gurjer. The deceased Kamlesh was a driver by profession and had a dispute with the owner of the truck Radheshyam (present petitioner). The quarrel arose between his employer and Kamlesh regarding the account at the petrol pump at Ratangarh and the petitioner had issued threats, as a result of which, it was alleged that Kamlesh committed suicide on 29.10.2011. The postmortem was conducted and during the investigation, visra was also preserved and offence was registered u/S.306 of the IPC against the accused petitioner and being aggrieved the revision petition filed by the present petitioner.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and the petitioner has been falsely implicated for offence u/S.306 of the IPC and there was not an iota of evidence on record. Counsel submitted that only statements of interested witnesses have been recorded by the police and even if the allegations by the wife of deceased Bhanvaribai and other witness are considered the only allegations available against the petitioner were that he made demand for the return of his money given to the deceased Kamlesh as a loan from advance salary and other account such a demand cannot be said to be abetment of the offence to commit suicide. Counsel placed reliance in the matter of Pramjeetsingh Chawala v. State of M.P. Cri.L.J.2007 (3343) and Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma v. State of MPWN (I) 2003 pg.73 and Devendra Singh v. State of M.P. 2007(III) MPWN 95 and Prakashchand v. State of M.P.2007(I) MPWN 20 to submit that several decisions of the Court indicate that demand for due loan does not amount to abetment to commit suicide and the FIR was quashed.
4. Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court of Criminal Revision No.816/2001 Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma (supra) to urges that this Court had categorically held that borrower saying to creditor that he may commit suicide does not amount to instigation, any conversation between borrower and creditor does not amount to abetment to commit suicide then under the present circumstances the statement of deceased's wife Bhanvaribai is considered, merely because the present petitioner demanded back his money it cannot be said that the petitioner had abetted to commit suicide. Counsel vehemently urged that the learned Judge of the Trial Court had erred in drawing the conclusion that the threats issued by the petitioner were ingredients of abetment. Counsel submitted that the impugned order framing charge be set aside.
5. Counsel for the respondent/State per contra stated that the petitioner was fully implicated in the matter and submitted that at the time of framing of charge all that the Court required to do is consider whether prima facie there is material available of frame charge and proceed against the accused petitioner. The Court is not bound to consider whether the material is sufficient for conviction. Counsel submitted that the statement of Bhanvaribai and others witnesses u/S.164 of Cr.P.C. clearly indicated that the petitioner had issued threats to such a extent as observed by the learned trial Court that the deceased Kamlesh had been frightened and decided to commit suicide and in the circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner, who was the owner of the truck had abetted in the commitment of suicide by the deceased Kamlesh and no infirmity cannot be found in the order imposing charge by the trial Court. Counsel submitted that the revision petition is without merit and the same be dismissed.
6. On considering the above submissions, I find that there is no other evidence on record to indicate that the accused in anyway abetted suicide. Besides the diary of accounts as has been produced by the police and alleged to be recovered from the accused petitioner; clearly indicated that the deceased Kamlesh used to borrower money heavily from the employer then under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the demanding money back was an act of harassment to the deceased. In the matter of Devendra Singh (supra) suicide note contains the name of the accused petitioner undoubtedly, however the Court held that it cannot be demand of money or loan amount or the alleged threating in connection with the demand of money cannot be said to be a provocation for committing suicide u/S.107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of thing and involvement of instigating or intentionally aided by any act of illegal omission and, therefore, there must willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures for a thing to be done and in the present case the petitioner was an employer to deceased Kamlesh and the deceased was in service for quite some time as indicated by the account book. Moreover the employer is bound to keep account of his money advanced to the employee in the nature of the business and then in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the words used in heat of the moment were threats which amount to abetment to commit suicide.
7. Consequently I place reliance Laxmi Prasad Vishwakarma (supra) to hold that demand made by petitioner Radheshyam from deceased Kamlesh did not amount to threats; the test or touchstone as per various authorities cited above; clearly indicated that the act of the petitioner would not come under the act of instigation; and if all ingredients of S.107 of the IPC are scanned in proper perspective it would be clear that there is no instigation or any illegal omission. Therefore, in my considered opinion there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did anything by which it can be said that he abetted in the suicide of the deceased Kamlesh. I find that the order of framing charge against the petitioner u/S.306 of the IPC requires to be quashed. It is hereby quashed.
The Criminal Revision is accordingly allowed to the extent here in above indicated.
Cc. as per rules.