Uday Narayan Singh Vs. State of M.P. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/952707
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnNov-18-2011
Case NumberCr. R. No. 1684 of 2011
Judge U.C. Maheshwari
AppellantUday Narayan Singh
RespondentState of M.P.
Excerpt:
u.c. maheshwari, j. 1. the applicant/accused has filed this revision under section 397/401 of the cr.p.c, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.03.2011 passed by the sessions judge, singroli in s.t.no.3/11 framing the charge against him and the co-accused for the offence of section 306 of the ipc. 2. the facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 17.8.2010 on receiving the information at police station, baidhan from the informer, namely, guddu singh regarding unnatural death of narendra singh on the railway track, a marg intimation no.99/10 under section 174 of the cr.p.c was registered. in the course of its inquiry, it was revealed that the deceased being employee of the present applicant, was working at his site near the railway track as watchman along with one motilal and before aforesaid unnatural death of narendra singh, on account of some theft at the aforesaid site of the applicant, narendra singh was subjected to beating with abuses with criminal intimidation by the applicant accompanied with co-accused, by which, narendra singh was instigated to commit suicide and committed the same by jumping in front of the running train. on which, the crime was registered against the applicant and said motilal for the offence under section 306 of the ipc. after holding the investigation, on completion of the same, the applicant along with other co-accused motilal was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 3. after committing the case to the sessions court on evaluation of the charge sheet, the charge of the aforesaid offence of section 306 of the ipc was framed against the applicant and other co-accused. they abjured the guilt and thereafter the applicant has come to this court with this revision with a prayer to discharge him. 4. shri piyush tiwari, counsel for the applicant after taking me through the copy of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the charges framed placed on the record, argued that even on taking into consideration the face-value of the entire charge sheet as accepted in its entirety, even then the ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 of the ipc are not made out against the applicant for framing such charge. in continuation he said that mere making the allegation of theft with the abuses and criminal intimidation along with beating of the deceased by the applicant soon before committing suicide, could not be treated to be the instigation or abetment to the deceased for committing suicide and, in such premises prima facie, it could not be deemed that the present applicant accompanied with other co-accused committed the alleged offence towards the deceased. in support of his submission he also place his reliance on unreported decision of the apex court in the matter of netai dutta vs. state of west bengal decided on 28.2.2005 in appeal (cri) no.359 of 2005, and also decisions of this court in the matter of mijajilal vs. state of m.p.-ilr (2011) mp 253 and in the matter of hukum singh yadav and another vs. state of m.p.- ilr (2011) m.p 1089 and prayed for discharging the applicant from the aforesaid charge by admitting and allowing this revision. 5. on the other hand, shri yogesh dhande, learned dy. g.a by justifying the impugned order and the charges framed said that the same being in consonance with the evidence collected by the investigating agency and placed on the record with the police report under section 173 of the cr.p.c showing the prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 of the ipc, does not require any interference at this stage under the revisional jurisdiction of this court and prayed for dismissal of this revision. 6. having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments advanced, i have carefully gone through the papers of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and charge framed, so also, the aforesaid cited cases. 7. undisputedly, the word “abetment” mentioned in section 306 of the ipc has not been separately defined under such section so, as per settled proposition of the law, for the purpose of its interpretation, section 107 of the ipc defining the words “the abetment of thing” is to be taken into consideration. the relevant part of section 107 of the ipc reads as under :- “section 107. abetment of a thing a person abets the doing of a thing, who— first.— instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly.—engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly.— intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” in view of the aforesaid provision, out of the three things, if any one or more than one ingredient is/are present in the matter then it shall be deemed that such thing was abetted by the person. the ingredients are :(a) instigation to the person by act or omission by the accused to do that thing and pursuant to it, other person commits the act, (b) engagement of the accused with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if an ac or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing and (c) the accused intentionally aids by the act or omission the doing of that thing. 8. in the light of the aforesaid ingredients of section 107 of the ipc on examining the case at hand then in the available factual matrix, it is apparent that soon before the incident deceased narendra singh who was working under the employment of the applicant at his site as watchman, was subjected to allegations of theft with abuses with criminal intimidation and was also beaten by the applicant accompanied with the other co-accused motilal and from such very alleged act of them, the deceased narendra singh was instigated to commit suicide and pursuant to that by jumping in front of the running train, committed suicide. so, in such premises, i have found prima facie circumstance against the applicant instigate the deceased to commit the suicide and when such prima facie evidence of instigation to commit suicide is available in the charge sheet then at this stage, in the matter there is no option with the court except to frame the charge of section 306 of the ipc against the applicant. it is trite law that at the stage of framing the charge, court has not to consider or decide the question whether in the available evidence of the charge sheet the accused like the applicant shall be convicted in the matter or not. if prima facie evidence of the alleged offence is found in the charge sheet then after framing the charge the trial should be held in the matter. as per the aforesaid discussion, the same is available in the case at hand. 9. so far the case law cited on behalf of the applicant is concerned, the case of netai dutta (supra) was decided taking into consideration same different factual matrix and the scenario and also keeping in view some letter (as alleged suicidal note of the deceased) according to which he was not satisfied with the working condition in the office but that is not the situation in the case at hand, on the contrary, apparently prima facie evidence to instigate the deceased, by abusing, intimidation and beating, is available against the applicant in the present matter, therefore, this decision of the apex court is not helping to the applicant. 10. so far the case law of this court in the matter of hukum singh yadav (supra) is concerned, although in such case the concerning accused/applicants were discharged from the charge of section 306 of the ipc but in the said case, on evaluation of the charge sheet, the prima facie ingredients of “abetment of thing” were not found and the concerning accused was discharged. while in the case at hand the prima facie evidence for framing the charge is available in the charge sheet, as discussed in the foregoing para of this order, therefore, this case being distinguishable on facts is also not helping to the applicant. 11. so far the case law in the matter of mijajilal (supra) is concerned, such case was decided after framing the charge and holding the trial by appreciation of the evidence and not at the stage of framing the charge. so firstly the same is distinguishable on this count and besides that such case was decided considering the averments of the dying declaration of the deceased also in which no allegations were found against the concerning applicant/accused which is not the situation in the case at hand. so, this case is also not helping to the applicant in the present matter. 12. apart the above, in view of the aforesaid discussion, prima facie it has been found that the deceased proceeded to commit suicide only because of the instigation and harassment given by the applicant by making the allegation of theft against him with abuses and also by beating and the veracity of such allegation could be answered in the matter only after holding the trial and recording the evidence at the stageof its appreciation and not prior to that. 13. in view of the aforesaid, i have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of the law in the order impugned framing the aforesaid charge of section 306 of the ipc against the applicant. consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
Judgment:

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

1. The applicant/accused has filed this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 15.03.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singroli in S.T.No.3/11 framing the charge against him and the co-accused for the offence of section 306 of the IPC.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 17.8.2010 on receiving the information at Police Station, Baidhan from the informer, namely, Guddu Singh regarding unnatural death of Narendra Singh on the railway track, a marg intimation No.99/10 under section 174 of the Cr.P.C was registered. In the course of its inquiry, it was revealed that the deceased being employee of the present applicant, was working at his site near the railway track as Watchman along with one Motilal and before aforesaid unnatural death of Narendra Singh, on account of some theft at the aforesaid site of the applicant, Narendra Singh was subjected to beating with abuses with criminal intimidation by the applicant accompanied with co-accused, by which, Narendra Singh was instigated to commit suicide and committed the same by jumping in front of the running train. On which, the crime was registered against the applicant and said Motilal for the offence under section 306 of the IPC. After holding the investigation, on completion of the same, the applicant along with other co-accused Motilal was charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

3. After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the charge sheet, the charge of the aforesaid offence of section 306 of the IPC was framed against the applicant and other co-accused. They abjured the guilt and thereafter the applicant has come to this court with this revision with a prayer to discharge him.

4. Shri Piyush Tiwari, counsel for the applicant after taking me through the copy of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the charges framed placed on the record, argued that even on taking into consideration the face-value of the entire charge sheet as accepted in its entirety, even then the ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 of the IPC are not made out against the applicant for framing such charge. In continuation he said that mere making the allegation of theft with the abuses and criminal intimidation along with beating of the deceased by the applicant soon before committing suicide, could not be treated to be the instigation or abetment to the deceased for committing suicide and, in such premises prima facie, it could not be deemed that the present applicant accompanied with other co-accused committed the alleged offence towards the deceased. In support of his submission he also place his reliance on unreported decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Netai Dutta Vs. State of West Bengal decided on 28.2.2005 in Appeal (cri) No.359 of 2005, and also decisions of this Court in the matter of MijajiLal Vs. State of M.P.-ILR (2011) MP 253 and in the matter of Hukum Singh Yadav and another Vs. State of M.P.- ILR (2011) M.P 1089 and prayed for discharging the applicant from the aforesaid charge by admitting and allowing this revision.

5. On the other hand, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. G.A by justifying the impugned order and the charges framed said that the same being in consonance with the evidence collected by the investigating agency and placed on the record with the police report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C showing the prima facie ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 of the IPC, does not require any interference at this stage under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and prayed for dismissal of this revision.

6. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and charge framed, so also, the aforesaid cited cases.

7. Undisputedly, the word “abetment” mentioned in section 306 of the IPC has not been separately defined under such section so, as per settled proposition of the law, for the purpose of its interpretation, section 107 of the IPC defining the words “the abetment of thing” is to be taken into consideration. The relevant part of Section 107 of the IPC reads as under :-

“Section 107. Abetment of a thing

A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

First.— Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.— Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

In view of the aforesaid provision, out of the three things, if any one or more than one ingredient is/are present in the matter then it shall be deemed that such thing was abetted by the person. The ingredients are :(a) instigation to the person by act or omission by the accused to do that thing and pursuant to it, other person commits the act, (b) Engagement of the accused with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if an ac or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing and (c) the accused intentionally aids by the act or omission the doing of that thing.

8. In the light of the aforesaid ingredients of section 107 of the IPC on examining the case at hand then in the available factual matrix, it is apparent that soon before the incident deceased Narendra Singh who was working under the employment of the applicant at his site as Watchman, was subjected to allegations of theft with abuses with criminal intimidation and was also beaten by the applicant accompanied with the other co-accused Motilal and from such very alleged act of them, the deceased Narendra Singh was instigated to commit suicide and pursuant to that by jumping in front of the running train, committed suicide. So, in such premises, I have found prima facie circumstance against the applicant instigate the deceased to commit the suicide and when such prima facie evidence of instigation to commit suicide is available in the charge sheet then at this stage, in the matter there is no option with the court except to frame the charge of section 306 of the IPC against the applicant. It is trite law that at the stage of framing the charge, Court has not to consider or decide the question whether in the available evidence of the charge sheet the accused like the applicant shall be convicted in the matter or not. If prima facie evidence of the alleged offence is found in the charge sheet then after framing the charge the trial should be held in the matter. As per the aforesaid discussion, the same is available in the case at hand.

9. So far the case law cited on behalf of the applicant is concerned, the case of Netai Dutta (supra) was decided taking into consideration same different factual matrix and the scenario and also keeping in view some letter (as alleged suicidal note of the deceased) according to which he was not satisfied with the working condition in the office but that is not the situation in the case at hand, on the contrary, apparently prima facie evidence to instigate the deceased, by abusing, intimidation and beating, is available against the applicant in the present matter, therefore, this decision of the Apex Court is not helping to the applicant.

10. So far the case law of this Court in the matter of Hukum Singh Yadav (supra) is concerned, although in such case the concerning accused/applicants were discharged from the charge of section 306 of the IPC but in the said case, on evaluation of the charge sheet, the prima facie ingredients of “abetment of thing” were not found and the concerning accused was discharged. While in the case at hand the prima facie evidence for framing the charge is available in the charge sheet, as discussed in the foregoing para of this order, therefore, this case being distinguishable on facts is also not helping to the applicant.

11. So far the case law in the matter of Mijajilal (supra) is concerned, such case was decided after framing the charge and holding the trial by appreciation of the evidence and not at the stage of framing the charge. So firstly the same is distinguishable on this count and besides that such case was decided considering the averments of the dying declaration of the deceased also in which no allegations were found against the concerning applicant/accused which is not the situation in the case at hand. So, this case is also not helping to the applicant in the present matter.

12. Apart the above, in view of the aforesaid discussion, prima facie it has been found that the deceased proceeded to commit suicide only because of the instigation and harassment given by the applicant by making the allegation of theft against him with abuses and also by beating and the veracity of such allegation could be answered in the matter only after holding the trial and recording the evidence at the stageof its appreciation and not prior to that.

13. In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity or anything against the propriety of the law in the order impugned framing the aforesaid charge of section 306 of the IPC against the applicant. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.