Ramesh Sondhiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1051359
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnApr-03-2013
AppellantRamesh Sondhiya
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
crr no.439/2013 criminal revision no.439/2013 03.04.2013 shri prakash gupta, counsel for the applicants. shri s.k.kashypa, public prosecutor for the state/respondent. as prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally. the applicants have challenged the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned 7th additional sessions judge, jabalpur in s.t.no.178/2013, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of ipc was framed against the applicants. the prosecution's case, in short, is that, in october 2012 a marriage of deepmala daughter of the deceased anandi raikwar was fixed with applicant no.2 rajendra. thereafter the engagement was dissolved. after sometime on 6.11.2012 the deceased anandi raikwar died before jumping a train, and therefore he committed suicide. after his death, a case of offence under section 306 of ipc was registered against the applicants. a suicidal note was recovered from the spot after one month of the incident. after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the crr no.439/2013 facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the seizure of the suicidal note from the spot was unnatural. a suicidal note should have been kept by the deceased either in his pocket or in his house and if he left such suicidal note at the time of the incident, then it is not possible that a piece of paper would remain at the spot for one month after the incident. it is nowhere established that the handwriting of the suicidal note was of the deceased. the investigation officer did not try to send the suicidal note to the concerned expert. if the language of the suicidal note is perused, then it would be apparent that it was prepared by someone else after the death of the deceased. also if the marriage of deepmala, daughter of the deceased was settled with the applicant no.2, son of the applicant no.1, then it was the sweet will of the applicants to proceed further with the marriage or not. it is nowhere clear that the marriage was dissolved due to dowry demand. however, at this stage no appreciation of evidence can be done. if it is presumed that the marriage could not be performed, because there was a demand of dowry from the applicants, then it was for the deceased to lodge an fir against the applicants for the offence under sections 3/4 of crr no.439/2013 dowry prohibition act. it appears that he committed suicide after 15 days of the dissolution of the engagement, and therefore it cannot be said that the dissolution of the engagement was direct cause of his suicide. since the deceased did not lodge any fir about the dowry demand etc., and therefore prima facie it cannot be said that such demand was the overt-act of the applicants that they dissolved the engagement and that overt-act does not fall within the purview of section 107 of ipc. the deceased could get the engagement of his daughter for someone else or he should have lodged an fir against the applicants, but it was not the solution for him to commit suicide. under such circumstances, where the overt-acts of the applicants do not fall within the purview of section 107 of ipc, no offence under section 306 of ipc shall constitute. under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned additional sessions judge jabalpur appears to be perverse, and therefore it is a fit case in which an interference is required from the side of this court by way of this revision. consequently, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed. the impugned order dated 22.2.2013 passed in st no.178/13 by the crr no.439/2013 learned additional sessions judge, jabalpur is hereby set aside. the applicants are discharged from the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of ipc. a copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information and compliance. (n.k.gupta) judge ansari
Judgment:

CRR No.439/2013 Criminal Revision No.439/2013 03.04.2013 Shri Prakash Gupta, counsel for the applicants.

Shri S.K.Kashypa, Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

As prayed, heard the learned counsel for the parties finally.

The applicants have challenged the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in S.T.No.178/2013, whereby the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was framed against the applicants.

The prosecution's case, in short, is that, in October 2012 a marriage of Deepmala daughter of the deceased Anandi Raikwar was fixed with applicant No.2 Rajendra.

Thereafter the engagement was dissolved.

After sometime on 6.11.2012 the deceased Anandi Raikwar died before jumping a train, and therefore he committed suicide.

After his death, a case of offence under Section 306 of IPC was registered against the applicants.

A suicidal note was recovered from the spot after one month of the incident.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the CRR No.439/2013 facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the seizure of the suicidal note from the spot was unnatural.

A suicidal note should have been kept by the deceased either in his pocket or in his house and if he left such suicidal note at the time of the incident, then it is not possible that a piece of paper would remain at the spot for one month after the incident.

It is nowhere established that the handwriting of the suicidal note was of the deceased.

The investigation officer did not try to send the suicidal note to the concerned Expert.

If the language of the suicidal note is perused, then it would be apparent that it was prepared by someone else after the death of the deceased.

Also if the marriage of Deepmala, daughter of the deceased was settled with the applicant No.2, son of the applicant No.1, then it was the sweet will of the applicants to proceed further with the marriage or not.

It is nowhere clear that the marriage was dissolved due to dowry demand.

However, at this stage no appreciation of evidence can be done.

If it is presumed that the marriage could not be performed, because there was a demand of dowry from the applicants, then it was for the deceased to lodge an FIR against the applicants for the offence under Sections 3/4 of CRR No.439/2013 Dowry Prohibition Act.

It appears that he committed suicide after 15 days of the dissolution of the engagement, and therefore it cannot be said that the dissolution of the engagement was direct cause of his suicide.

Since the deceased did not lodge any FIR about the dowry demand etc., and therefore prima facie it cannot be said that such demand was the overt-act of the applicants that they dissolved the engagement and that overt-act does not fall within the purview of Section 107 of IPC.

The deceased could get the engagement of his daughter for someone else or he should have lodged an FIR against the applicants, but it was not the solution for him to commit suicide.

Under such circumstances, where the overt-acts of the applicants do not fall within the purview of Section 107 of IPC, no offence under Section 306 of IPC shall constitute.

Under such circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.2.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jabalpur appears to be perverse, and therefore it is a fit case in which an interference is required from the side of this Court by way of this revision.

Consequently, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby allowed.

The impugned order dated 22.2.2013 passed in ST NO.178/13 by the CRR No.439/2013 learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur is hereby set aside.

The applicants are discharged from the charge of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.

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

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Ansari