SURESH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUPPLEMENTARY -affidavit filed today is taken on record. With the consent of parties, the revision is being disposed of today.

(2.) I have heard arguments advanced from both sides. Perused the records.

(3.) THE order dated 25.2.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge has been challenged mainly on the ground, that no offence under Section 306, I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist. Admittedly, the marriage of deceased and the revisionist had taken place much before 7 years so there will be no presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act that the suicide was abetted by the revisionist. It has been vehemently argued by Mr. Dixit, the learned counsel for the revisionist that learned Additional Sessions Judge had without any application of mind, illegally directed to summon the revisionist for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. without even considering that there is no iota of evidence on the record to show that there was any instigation or abetment on the part of revisionist which led to Kaushalya for committing suicide. Placing reliance on the following case laws Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 387 : 2008 (3) ACR 2723 (SC); Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal. : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896 and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree and another, : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 578 : 2009 (1) ACR 283 (SC), learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306, I.P.C., the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to commit suicide. More -so there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.