SUNIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS heard.

(2.) ON 18th September, 2001, Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, framed charge against this petitioner for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC giving rise to this revision.

(3.) AS per the prosecution case, the deceased Malti Bai became pregnant by this petitioner, who promised to marry her. Thereafter, when Malti Bai came to know that this petitioner is intending to marry with another girl, she informed this petitioner about the conception and also alarmed him that in case the petitioner does not marry her, she would commit suicide. On this petitioner's telling her to die, Malti Bai is stated to have consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide. It is submitted by Shri Naik that in case on account of casual conservation and asking some one to die. If somebody commits suicide, the offence committed under Section 306, IPC can not be said to have been made out. In support of his argument, he has drawn Court's attention in the case of Swami Prahlad Das v. State of M. P. , reported in 1991 Cr. LR (SC) 141, wherein, the suicide was not accepted to be the direct result of words uttered by the accused/petitioner. But in that case, the facts and circumstances were different and the victim was not pregnant nor was there any occasion for her to commit suicide whereas, in this case in the event of refusal to marry, the victim, she can not be taken to have suffered a frustration only but shall be taken to have been driven to commit suicide and hence the cited authority does not help the petitioner.