KRISHN KISHORE VAISHNAV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is brought before this Court challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dtd. 25/10/2021 passed by the Upper Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon in S.T. No. 4/2021 framing charge against the applicants under Sec. 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (in short 'IPC').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 10/8/2020, the applicants had gone with Trilok Janghel (since deceased) to his village in car bearing registration No. CG 04 HK 8200, where the deceased went to his house and brought bundle of rupees and some documents /cheque book, which he was giving to the applicants, but they made him sit in the car by holding his hands and went from there. Since deceased Trilok Janghel did not return home, on 11/8/2020 his brother lodged missing report No. 15/2020 in PS Chhuikhadan. On 11/8/2020 at about 8.30 PM, one Dheeraj Kotadia lodged merg report at PS Kotwali, Rajnandgaon that one unknown person is lying dead in open place beside his house, where some scraps of auto have been dumped. Police recovered the body, inquest was prepared and post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased, wherein the doctor opined that the cause of death was due to poisoning. During merg inquiry, it was found that the deceased is Trilok Janghel, hence merg inquiry was transferred to PS Chhuikhadan, Distt. Rajnandgaon and FIR was lodged against the applicants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order suffers from illegality for the simple reason that prima facie, no case is made out against the applicants for framing charge under Sec. 306 of the IPC. It is further submitted that neither any reason has been mentioned in the alleged suicidal note nor the applicants have been named in it. Although, relatives of the deceased have stated in their police statements that due to mental pressure created by the applicants regarding transaction/demand of money upon the deceased, he has committed suicide, but there is no evidence in the charge sheet that the deceased had borrowed money from any of the applicants and they abetted him to commit suicide, more over demand of return of money cannot be termed as abetment or instigation. Relying on the judgment of M. Arjunan v. State [2019 (3) SCC 315], it is submitted that for framing of charge under Sec. 306, IPC, prosecution is required to prima facie establish necessary ingredients against the applicants for abetment for commission of suicide, as defined under Sec. 107 of the IPC. But, in the instant case, essential ingredients of abetment of alleged offence are not present from the evidence available on record. It is lastly submitted that if the evidence available on record is accepted in toto, then also, it is not sufficient to hold the applicants guilty under Sec. 306, IPC, therefore, the order of framing of charge against the applicants is perverse and bad in law.