RIKHEE RAM MAHILANG Vs. STATE OF CHHATISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 8/2/2006 passed by Shri 11th Add1. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur, in Sessions Case No. 69/2006 whereby a charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. was framed against the applicants.

(2.) Brief facts are that on 19/7/2004, Bhushanlal Verma committed suicide by hanging himself inside his house at about 4.30 p.m. Merg intimation (No. 78/2004) was lodged by Bhushanlal Verma, brother of the deceased on 19/7/2004 at 7.00 p.m. at P.S. Dharsiva wherein no cause for the suicide committed by Bhushanlal Verma was stated. During investigation, the Prosecution Officer in reply to a letter of the City Superintendent of Police, Distt. Korba, regarding merg No. 78/2004 opined on 14.9.2005 that on 16.7.2004, Nikhiram and others had levelled an allegation- against Bhushanlal Verma that he was responsible for damaging the tractor of Sunder Singh and therefore a prime-fade offence of abetment of suicide exists. Consequently, Crime No. 322/2005 was registered on 18.9.2005 at P.S. Dharsiva i.e. more than a year and two months after the suicide committed by Bhushanlal Verma. A challan under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. was filed against the applicants and one co-accused Kamleshdas Vaishnav.

(3.) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that even if the entire prosecution story is believed to be correct, no prima-facie case under Section 306 of I.P.C. exists against the applicants since there was not even an iota of material on record to show that the applicants had instigated the abetment of suicide by Bhushanla! Verma. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that impugned order was liable to be set aside. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate has opposed the prayer, though formally.