KARTHIK Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RPF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the dismissal of the discharge application filed by the petitioner, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.11410 of 2013 in S.C.No.313 of 2013, dated 6.12.2013.

(2.) THE facts of the prosecution case in brief is as follows : - (a) The deceased and the petitioner were lovers. The deceased requested the petitioner to marry her. However, the petitioner refused to marry. While so, on 21.10.2009, an argument broke out between the deceased and the petitioner over marriage proposal. The petitioner refused to marry the deceased and in a fit of anger asked the deceased to go and die. It is said that due to such words of the petitioner, the deceased committed suicide by falling before a running train. Though initially police registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C., later, on the complaint of the father of the deceased, that the petitioner cheated the deceased and instigated her to commit suicide, the case was altered and the petitioner was booked for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The petitioner filed a discharge petition before the lower Court. However, the same was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal order, the present criminal revision has been filed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case was originally registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and only on the basis of the complaint given by the father of the deceased, it was altered into abetment to commit suicide. According to the learned counsel, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has actually abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. Even the train driver has only stated that a girl attempted to cross the railway line and got hit. There is no direct evidence to prove that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The learned counsel further submitted that mere uttering of the words ''to go and die '' itself would not constitute ingredients of instigation. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438 [Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. and another] and AIR 2002 SC 1998 [Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh]. According to the learned counsel, in this case, there is no piece of evidence to show that the petitioner was instrumental for the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the order of the lower Court may be set aside.