CHANDAN SONI Vs. TATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 24-3-2006 passed by Shri N. K. Chandrawanshi, IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial Number 24/2006 whereby charge under S. 305 of the IPC was framed against the applicant.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution story is that the applicant was serving as a driver in the house of one Smt. Sheela Verma. He was convicted in Sessions Trial Number 298/2003 for committing rape on Ku. Aakansha Verma, daughter of Smt. Sheela Verma and also sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine. The applicant was on bail during trial. It is alleged that the applicant used to intimidate Ku. Aakansha Verma through telephone calls. Crime Number 76/2004 was registered under S. 507 of I.P.C. against the applicant and after investigation prosecution was launched. The applicant continued to intimidate Ku. Aakansha Verma by threatening that he would take revenge and would kill her and her mother. The intimidation went on to such an extent that Ku. Aakansha Verma got completely demoralised and stopped going to school and lived under depression. On 21-9-2004 Ku. Aakansha Verma committed suicide by hanging herself in the room. During investigation of merg, Smt. Sheela Verma narrated that since 18-9-2004 Ku. Aakansha Verma was living under depression and was under tremendous fear. On being asked, she had started crying and told her that the applicant had made her survival difficult. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the material produced by the prosecution, framed charge under S. 305 of I.P.C. against the applicant herein.

(3.) Shri P. K. C. Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has argued that even if the entire documents under S. 173 of Cr. P.C. were accepted at. its face value, a charge under S. 305 of I.P.C. was not made out even prima facie against the applicant since, there was no material to show that soon bcfore the commission of suicide by Ku. Aakansha Verma, the applicant had in any manner threatened or intimidated her. Reliance was placed on Mahendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh with Gayatribai v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1995 AIR SCW 4570 : (1996 Cri LJ 894); Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 AIR SCW 2035 : (2002 Cri LJ 2796); Mamta Sahu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2006 (1) Crimes 11; Asha Shukla v. State of LIP., 2002 Cri LJ 2233 (All); Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2005 AIR SCW 1326 : (2005 Cri LJ 1737). On the other hand, Shri Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer placed reliance on the State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532 : (1991 Cri LJ 1897) and State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar (2000) 10 SCC 337 and argued in support of the impugned order.