U SRIKRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 13.3.2007 in Crl.M.P.No.29 of 2007 in S.C.No.81 of 2006, dated 13.3.2007 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nilgiris at Ootacamund, dismissing the discharge application filed by the revision petitioner/accused.

(2.) THE respondent/complainant filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of the complaint given by one Radhakrishnan, the maternal uncle of the deceased Girish.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been made out. In the FIR/complaint which was given on 10.11.2004 given by Radhakrishnan, the maternal uncle of the deceased Girish, and the said Radhakrishnan has not mentioned either the name of the accused or the part played by him. In the FIR, it was specifically mentioned that the sister of the deceased threatened the deceased. LEARNED counsel further submitted that the sister of the deceased told the deceased that the factum of theft will be intimated to their parents. Afraid of the same, the deceased committed suicide. LEARNED counsel further contended that the documentary evidence has not been properly considered by the trial Court while dismissing the discharge application. He further submitted that during inquest, no overt act had been attributed against the accused. He further submitted that for abetment of suicide, the basic ingredients of Sections 107 and 306 IPC, have not been prima-facie made out as against the revision petitioner/accused. Furthermore, he submitted that the revision petitioner/accused was examined by the investigating officer and his statement under Section 161 Cr,.P.C. does not show any nexus between the action of the revision petitioner/accused and the commission of offence and there is no evidence to link the accused with the offence. The trial Court did not consider all the above aspects in proper perspective and hence, he prayed for allowing the Crl.R.C. and discharge him from the charge framed under Section 306 IPC and to set aside the impugned judgment. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court and Kerala High Court.