Santosh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1053262
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-08-2013
AppellantSantosh
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
crr no.1640/1999 criminal revision no.1640/1999 8.1.2013 shri ishteyaq husain, counsel for the applicant. shri puneet shroti, panel lawyer for the state/ respondent. heard the learned counsel for the parties. the applicant has challenged the order dated 10.9.1999 passed by the learned additional sessions judge, harda in s.t.no.99/1999, 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 mamta was the wife of one shyam, who was also residing in the same building, where the applicant was residing in a small portion. the applicant was scolded from time to time that he was permitting the outsiders to stay in his room. on 29.8.1996, at about 4.45 a.m.in the morning, the deceased mamta went from her room to answer the call of nature and the co-accused pappu lodhi, who stayed in the portion of the applicant, in that night, held her and tried to outrage her modesty by using a criminal force. when the witness shyam and other witnesses took the applicant to the landlord then, the applicant misbehaved with the landlord also. in the meantime, the deceased mamta, wife of the crr no.1640/1999 witness shyam consumed some poisonous substance and therefore, vomiting were caused to her and thereafter, she expired. after due investigation, a charge-sheet for offence punishable under section 306 of ipc was filed against the applicant and co-accused pappu. the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the overt-act as alleged against the applicant does not fall within the purview of section 107 of ipc and he was not the person, who committed the offence under section 354 of ipc against the deceased. he was not aware that the co-accused would do such an act in the night. there was no possibility that the deceased would come out in the night. under such circumstances, no offence punishable under section 306 of ipc is made out against the applicant. no presumption under section 113-a of evidence act may apply in the present case. the trial court has framed the charge for offence punishable under section 306 of ipc against the applicant, without any basis and therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be discharged. learned panel lawyer for the state opposes the application. crr no.1640/1999 after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the overt-act of the applicant was that he permitted the co-accused pappu to reside in his room, who committed the offence punishable under section 354 of ipc with the deceased. by such overt-act, no ingredient of section 107 of ipc is attracted. no offence punishable under section 306 of ipc is made out against the applicant. the learned additional sessions judge has framed the charges of offence punishable under section 306 of ipc against the applicant, without any basis and therefore, apparently the impugned order passed by the learned additional sessions judge, harda appears to be erroneous. hence, it is a good case, in which the revisionary powers of this court may be exercised. consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby allowed. the order dated 10.9.1999 passed by learned additional sessions judge, harda is hereby set aside. the applicant is discharged from the charges of offence punishable under section 306 of ipc. crr no.1640/1999 a copy of the order be sent to the additional sessions judge, harda for information and compliance. certified copy as per rules. (n.k.gupta) judge pushpendra
Judgment:

CRR No.1640/1999 Criminal Revision No.1640/1999 8.1.2013 Shri Ishteyaq Husain, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The applicant has challenged the order dated 10.9.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in S.T.No.99/1999, 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 Mamta was the wife of one Shyam, who was also residing in the same building, where the applicant was residing in a small portion.

The applicant was scolded from time to time that he was permitting the outsiders to stay in his room.

On 29.8.1996, at about 4.45 a.m.in the morning, the deceased Mamta went from her room to answer the call of nature and the co-accused Pappu Lodhi, who stayed in the portion of the applicant, in that night, held her and tried to outrage her modesty by using a criminal force.

When the witness Shyam and other witnesses took the applicant to the landlord then, the applicant misbehaved with the landlord also.

In the meantime, the deceased Mamta, wife of the CRR No.1640/1999 witness Shyam consumed some poisonous substance and therefore, vomiting were caused to her and thereafter, she expired.

After due investigation, a charge-sheet for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC was filed against the applicant and co-accused Pappu.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the overt-act as alleged against the applicant does not fall within the purview of section 107 of IPC and he was not the person, who committed the offence under section 354 of IPC against the deceased.

He was not aware that the co-accused would do such an act in the night.

There was no possibility that the deceased would come out in the night.

Under such circumstances, no offence punishable under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.

No presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act may apply in the present case.

The trial Court has framed the charge for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC against the applicant, without any basis and therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be discharged.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.

CRR No.1640/1999 After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the overt-act of the applicant was that he permitted the co-accused Pappu to reside in his room, who committed the offence punishable under section 354 of IPC with the deceased.

By such overt-act, no ingredient of section 107 of IPC is attracted.

No offence punishable under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed the charges of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC against the applicant, without any basis and therefore, apparently the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda appears to be erroneous.

Hence, it is a good case, in which the revisionary powers of this Court may be exercised.

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

The order dated 10.9.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Harda is hereby set aside.

The applicant is discharged from the charges of offence punishable under section 306 of IPC.

CRR No.1640/1999 A copy of the order be sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, Harda for information and compliance.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra