ROOPWATI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 6.2.2014 passed by Additional Distinct & Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Bareilly in S.T. No. 222 of 2013 State v. Smt. Roopwati and others,. arising out of case Crime No. 1094 of 2011 under Section 306, 201, 203 IPC, P.S. Aonla District Bareilly whereby application for discharge moved by the revisionists has been rejected. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava learned counsel for the revisionists and also Sri Hari Bansh Singh who appeared on behalf of the opp. party No. 2 and perused the record as well as the impugned order.

(2.) In rebuttal learned counsel for the opp. party has submitted that actually the reason for the deceased to commit suicide was because of mis-behaviour done by his in-laws and the actual cause for driving him in that mental status under which he impelled to commit suicide came from the accused side and therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted with and the Court below has rightly proceeded to frame the charge against the revisionists.

(3.) It is a case where the deceased Tilak Singh is said to have died at or near the house of his in laws where he had allegedly gone to fetch his wife back to his house. If the deceased committed suicide at the house of in laws that by itself will not be the evidence that he did so because he was abetted to do so. There has to be some kind of evidence to go to that extent. There must be some tangible evidence to suggest the complicity of some accused for having done something which may be said to be equal to abetment. If some body on his own volition because of his own frustration or because of his over sensitivity or because of his hyper reaction to some unpleasant event commit suicide it will not automatically make others guilty of abetment. Of course if the conduct of some body is such which though may not be said to have directly abetted the deceased to commit the suicide but was of such nature which in all probability was bound to impel or drive a man to take the fatal extremes step. All depends on facts and circumstances of each case. So far as the present case is concerned, the order impugned does not contain any such material facts which may indicate any participation or any such conduct of the accused which may give rise to the inference that they were guilty of the offence of abetment. There may be material present in the case diary to that effect and Court must have adverted to the same and should have given reference to the same at the time of framing of charge of the accused. But unfortunately the same course has not been adopted. The order impugned because of being too cursory and non speaking deserves to be set aside for it does not deal either with the submissions made on behalf of the revisionists nor does not deal with or refer to any of the circumstance which are essential for constituting the crime. The revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below, which is directed to rehear the parties and again decide the application of the revisionist in accordance with law and pass a speaking order giving reference to prosecution material if not in great detail, but at least in brief, which should be sufficient to indicate the factual basis on the strength of which the prosecution proposes to indict the accused.