B P SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE FIR No.332/2005, the instant case, under Section 306/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners at police station Farsh Bazar, Delhi.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the aforesaid FIR, the petitioners had challenged the same being Writ Petition (Criminal) No.2152-53/2005 which by the order of this Court dated 06.04.2009, has been dismissed.

(3.) VIDE the instant revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in spite of the directions from the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.08.2010, the trial Court has been influenced by the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by this Court, in addition to the other grounds/ material. The trial Court has observed as under:- "In terms of the suicide note of the deceased it cannot be inferred that the deceased was a over sensitive person or that decision of committing suicide was impulsive one. In fact, it goes to show trauma being faced by the deceased because of the conduct of the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused herein had also filed quashing petition before Honble High Court which was dismissed but the observation of Honble High Court in that order are very relevant, since all the pleas raised before this court were also raised before Honble High Court and were discussed by Honble High Court in detail. It was observed by Honble High Court in the order dated 6.4.2009 that:- ,,Definition of ,,instigation under Section 107 IPC also includes the making of a false representation. The deceased had done obviously nothing wrong and yet he was asked by the petitioners to connive in a fraudulent act of giving a back paper for which he would be awarded the ,,rightful marks. When he declined to do so, he was assured that the University would be persuaded to rectify the mistake. After a prolonged wait and after repeatedly being given assurances by the petitioners that the necessary correction would be effected, the deceased took the extreme step of committing suicide. " It was further observed that :- ,,It is not possible, on reading of the suicide note as a whole to hold that the conduct of the Petitioners could not have constituted ,,instigation. It is not necessary that should be some verbal exchange which alone leads to suicide. It could be in any other manner which offends the dignity of the victim. The refrain of the Petitioners is that it was always possible for the deceased to have given the back paper without his overall result being affected. This, however, fails to account for the trauma the deceased must have had to face in being asked to commit an obviously fraudulent act by giving a back paper when in fact he had done no wrong. It was also observed that the court at this stage cannot sift the evidence. All it is required to examine at this stage is to see whether the material gathered by the prosecution justified the Petitioners being proceeded against for the offence in question. At the stage of framing of charge similar is the position before this court as at the stage of framing of charge it is not required to sift the evidence but only to see whether material gathered by the prosecution justifies the accused persons being proceeded against for the offence in question. Lastly, having discussed all the arguments, as raised by Ld Defence counsel three also, Honble High Court observed that it was unable to conclude that not even a prima facie is made out from the material to proceed against the Petitioners for the defence under sections 306/34 IPC. Besides the matter as discussed, same analogy needs to be applied by this court at the stage of framing of charge. Accordingly, prima facie case having been made from the material on record against the accused persons for the offence under section 306/34 IPC, let the same be framed against the accused persons, which is framed and read over to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."