RAGHURAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/accused have filed this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 3.10.2011 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna in S.T. No. 124/11 framing the charge against them along with other co-accused for the offence of section 306/34 of the IPC. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 6.7.2009 at about 6.10 O' clock in the morning the information regarding unnatural death of Hiralal Singh was received at Police Station Civil Lines, Satna from the informer Dhiru Singh, according to which, the deceased left his home at about 10 in the night of 5.7.09 and on 6.7.09 at 5 O' clock in the morning when his mother went outside to answer the call of nature then she saw said Baba Hira Lal Singh was hanging dead on the tree, on which, the Marg intimation No. 30/09 was registered at such police station. In its inquiry, the interrogatory statements of Surendra Singh and Nagendra Singh were recorded. Besides this, the dead body panchnama and the spot map was also prepared. In inquiry one suicidal note written by the deceased on the letter-pad of the Gram Panchayat showing the reason for committing suicide was also found on the dead body of said Hira Lal Singh, according to which, Raghuraj Singh and Rishi Kumar Garg, the applicants, subsequent to the election of the deceased as Sarpanch of the village, by giving criminal intimidation and making complaints, use to demand the money from him. Besides this, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat also withdrew the money by practicing fraud with the deceased and that is why, he is committing the suicide. On the basis of such interrogatory statements and the suicidal note, it was revealed that the applicants and the Secretary of the Panchayat, had abetted the deceased for committing suicide, on which, the Dehati Nalishi No. 0/09 was drawn-up by the Police Officer on 6.7.09 at about 11 O' Clock in the morning. The same was sent to the Police Station where the original offence was registered at Crime No. 285/ 09 on the same day. In further investigation, the interrogatory statements of Surendra Singh, Nagendra Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Narendra Sing and Dhiru were recorded. On completion of the investigation, it was established that the applicants and the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat had abetted the deceased Hira Lal Singh for committing the suicide, on which they all were charge sheeted for the offence of section 306/34 of the IPC.

(2.) After committing the case to the Sessions Court on evaluation of the charge sheet, the charge of the aforesaid offence of section 306 of the IPC was framed against the applicants and other co-accused. They abjured the guilt and thereafter the applicants have come to this court with this revision.

(3.) Shri Deepak Okhade, counsel for the applicants after taking me through the papers of the charge sheet placed on the record along with the order dated 18.12.08 passed by the SDO and the competent authority in Case No. 4/A-89/07-08 along with some inquiry report, the FIR of Crime No. 276/09 registered on dated 3.7.09 against the deceased and some other five persons including the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat for the offence under section 420,467,468 and 471 of the IPC, which are not part of the charge sheet; and also the impugned order, argued that keeping in view the aforesaid FIR of Crime No. 276/09 registered at the same Police Station before two days from the date of committing the suicide by Hira Lal Singh and the aforesaid order of the SDO with the inquiry report if the evidence collected by the investigating agency placed before the Court with the police report under section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. is taken into consideration as accepted in its entirety even then the ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 of the IPC are not made out against any of the applicants for framing the impugned charge. In continuation, he said that from the averments of the suicidal note or the case diary statements of the above mentioned witnesses, any of the ingredients of section 107 of the IPC defining "abetment of thing" are not made out and, in such premises, it could not be inferred even for framing the charge that any of the applicant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide or at their instigation, he proceeded and committed suicided. With these submissions he prayed for discharging the applicants from the aforesaid charge by admitting and allowing this revision.