VISHESH KUMAR BHAWTE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Section 397,401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 21.01.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Rajnandgaon in S.T.No.108/2009 by which charge under Section 306,34 of IPC has been framed against the applicants.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that deceased Anju Ambade was engaged to applicant No.1 Vishesh Kumar Bhawte and parents of the deceased were demanding to fix the date of marriage which was refused by them. On 15.07.09, a society meeting was called on, where both the families were present which went on for the whole night and during that course, the deceased went to her house to drink water and when she did not come for about half an hour, her mother went to call her daughter and found her hanging on the raft of the house by tying her dupatta on the neck. Learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the arguments of the applicants and framed charges under Section 306,34 IPC against both the accused hence, the present revision.

(3.) Counsel for the applicants submits that in the entire charge sheet, there is no material available on record to frame charges against the present applicants for the offence under Section 306 IPC and as such, learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality in framing charges against the present applicants as there is no proximity and nexus between the conduct and behaviour of the applicants with that of suicide committed by deceased Anju Ambade. Counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Swamy Prahladas Vs. State of M.P. and Another, 1995 Supp3 SCC 438, wherein the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have remarked the deceased 'to go and die'. Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased 'to go and die' were not even prima facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. He has also placed reliance in the matter of Amit Gandhi and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in Cr. Rev. No. 136 of 2014 and 199/2014.