DINESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed against order dated 23rd July, 2008, passed by Additional Session Judge, Delhi, for setting aside the order on charge as well as charge framed against the petitioner.

(2.) As per allegations made in the FIR deceased (Deepak) and petitioner Dinesh were cousins. There was some discord between them with regard to the transfer of some property by their grand-mother in the name of petitioner to the exclusion, inter alia of the deceased. It is alleged that on 23rd July, 2005, at about 7 p.m. deceased called petitioner at his house for some conversation. At about 9.10 p.m., when complainant Amit(who is brother of deceased), came back to his house, he found the door bolted from inside. He peeped into the room down through the door and saw that deceased had hanged himself with a plastic rope by tying the same with T-iron rod of the roof with the support of the washing machine lying on the floor. Complainant opened the door and raised an alarm and immediately neighbourers also came. Deceased was brought down on the ground and was taken to a nursing home, where he was declared as 'brought dead'.

(3.) It is alleged by the complainant that, petitioner used to pick up quarrel frequently with him (complainant) and his family members. Thus, the complainant has full suspicion that his brother Deepak was tortured and harassed by the petitioner, which compelled/forced Deepak to commit suicide. 4.On basis of this complaint, a case under Section 306 IPC was registered against the petitioner. After completion of investigation,challan was filed in the Court. 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that charge has been framed against the petitioner without there being an iota of evidence of any abetment by the petitioner to commit suicide by deceased. In the FIR, there are no allegations that petitioner ever abetted the deceased to commit suicide. FIR in question does not disclose the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, as the essential ingredients of the offence defined under Section 107 IPC are not fulfilled. 6. In support of its contentions, learned counsel for petitioner referred the following judgments;