SOHANLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-accused has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set-aside the impugned order dated 28/01/2019 passed by Forth Additional Sessions Judge Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 19/2019 whereby learned Forth Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar framed charges against the petitioner-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC.

(2.) The facts of the prosecution case are that Makhanlal informed the police Station Kotwali, District Sagar on 01.04.2018 that deceased Rajkumar is his younger brother. He is unmarried. He was ill since 15 to 20 days. He has taken treatment of doctor Murari. On 30.04.2018 he committed suicide by hanging, marg No. 40/2018 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sagar. It was found in inquiry that deceased was brother of present petitioner. Accused present petitioner accused is elder brother of informant Makhanlal and deceased Rajkumar. Deceased Rajkumar demanded his share from disputed house but petitioner-accused was not ready to give his share although the share has already been given by his father to the deceased but present petitioner-accused has possession of the share of deceased, so deceased was humiliated by the petitioner- accused. Petitioner-accused and his wife humiliated, tortured and also beaten him from time to time. Apart from that a suicidal note was also found in the Almirah of the deceased. All the facts of tortured and humilation is mentioned in the suicidal note. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner-accused under Section 306 of IPC thereafter, learned trial judge framed the charges against the petitioner-accused as aforesaid.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the order of trial court is improper, incorrect and illegal in the eyes of facts and law. Even if all the allegations of the prosecution are proved then no case of abetment of suicide is made out. There is no ingredient of Section 107 of IPC which is available on record. No call details as well as reliable evidence have been produced before the learned trial court. No independent witnesses is available on record. In the dying declaration of the deceased there is no name has been deposed by the deceased specifically that of the petitioner-accused. Prior to the incident the deceased did not make any complaint to any authority against the petitioner-accused which shows the intention of police to implicate petitioner-accused falsely. The charges are absolutely groundless against the petitioner-accused,so learned trial court has not appreciated the entire material as well as documentary evidence, so impugned order is not proper so this court may be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2019.