MAMTA SAHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 12th October, 2004 whereby the petitioner-Mamta Sahu has been charged of abetting suicide by her husband- Mahender Sahu. The impugned order is brief. By way of ground for framing charge, the Additional Sessions Judge has merely stated in the order that from the statement of Kapil Sahu(son of the accused) and Seema, there is a prima facie material under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short' IPC) against the accused. It is submitted before this Court by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that two statements of Kapil Sahu and Seema do not indicate any offence of abetment to suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

(2.) Mahender Sahu(hereinafter referred to as the deceased') was admitted to Tirath Ram Shah Hospital on 10th July, 2002 at 1.30 AM, He had been brought there by his wife and brother. The MLC shows that the deceased had consumed melathion 50% EC half-an-hour before he was brought to the hospital. After a prolonged illness, the deceased died on 9th March, 2003. The FIR which was originally registered under Section 309 of the IPC was, thereafter, converted to Section 306 of the IPC. The statement of Kapil Sahu was recorded on 17th April, 2003. A copy of the translation of the statement of Kapil Sahu has been placed on record. I, however, prefer to read the original statement recorded in Hindi available in the trial court record. As per this statement, the deceased and the revision petitioner/accused had a fight on the evening preceding the incident at around 8.30 PM. The cause of the quarrel was that the brother of the revision petitioner, about two months before, had stated that he was not bothered as to whether Kapil or his father was dead. The deceased asked the accused again and again as to whether her brother had said such a thing and the accused again and again denied the same. The witness Kapil Sahu goes on to say that on getting angry the deceased asked the accused to recover Rs.8 lacs from her brother "as he wanted to purchase another house. Such money had been given by the deceased to the brother of the accused. The witness says that thereafter the mother/accused became angry and said that she would go back home. When the accused started leaving their house, the deceased wanted to restrain the accused from leaving the house on which there was a scuffle. The deceased, however, succeeded in preventing the accused from leaving the house. He had made the accused sit in a room and bolted the room from outside and even got the main gate locked. Later, however, the room was opened. The son Kapil Sahu was asked to go back to sleep as he was to attend school next morning. Kapil Sahu says that his parents thereafter also went to bed at around 1.00 a.m. Kapil Sahu says, he got up on hearing some noise and found that the deceased was vomiting in the varandah while the accused was standing. The accused told him that the deceased had consumed something. He went to the deceased and asked him but the deceased denied having taken anything.

(3.) The statement, thereafter, goes on to say how the brother of the deceased was called and how they brought the deceased to the hospital.