RAJESHWAR MISRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Laltaprasad Misra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent.

(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Rajeshwar Misra challenging the order dated 25.3.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Ambedkar Nagar by wich application for discharge moved by the revisionist was rejected and orders were passed for framing of charge under Section 498 -A, 306 IPC.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in order to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commisison of the crime. Any dispute between husband and wife in regard to education of children cannot be at all considered to be an ingredient required for constituting an offence under Section 306 IPC or Section 498 -A IPC. It was further submitted that mere proof that crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirement of Section 107 IPC to bring home the essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC. It was next submitted that it is well settled that no person can be forced to face the rigor of a crime trial, if on the basis of the material collected during investigation, in the event of it being converted into evidence during trial, no conviction can be based on such evidence. It was submitted that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing and without a positive act on the part of a person to instigate or aid in committing suicide of a person, offence of abetment is not made out. More active role, which could be described as instigating or aiding doing of thing is required before person can be said to have abetted commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. In the instant case, the essential ingredient to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out as there is no active act or direct act attributable to the revisionist, which led the deceased to commit suicide. It was also submitted that in the present case, there has been absence of any abetment on the part of the revisionist or any act or omission on the part of the revisionist instigating for compelling the deceased to commit suicide or persuade her to commit suicide. It was submitted that mensrea is an essential element to constitute any offence and the same is absent in the present case, hence no offence can be said to be made out against the revisionist. It was submitted that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the deceased without any dowry, which fact has come during investigation, as also, the deceased was wearing gold ornaments worth Rs.Three Lacs at the time of unfortunate incident, this fact unerringly rules out the factum of any demand of dowry or cruelty by the revisionist or his family members, which could have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It was submitted that due to these circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that it was the revisionist, who has abetted for suicide, and there is no evidence to show cruelty.Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the cases of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat and another, 2010 8 SCC 628; K.R.J. Sarma v. R.V. Surya Rao and another, 2013 4 SCC 118; Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., 2002 5 SCC 371; Manik Uttamrao Solav v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 CrLJ 343 (BOM.); Ashish Chaudhary v. State,2009 1 DLT 567; Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana,2008 3 DLT 394 (SC); Kailashi Bai v. Aarti Arya and another, 2009 4 SLT 632; Swamy Prahalad Das v. State of M.P. and another, 1995 Supp3 SCC 438; Mahendra Singh Gayatri Bai and another v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp3 SCC 731; State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another, 1994 1 SCC 73; and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 1 SCC 750 and submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the revisionist was abettor of suicide. He also submittted that no evidence under Section 498 -A is made out.