JALIL KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/accused have filed this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in Session Trial No. 162/2020, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Tikarmgarh has framed the charges against the petitioners/accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

(2.) As per prosecution case, on 23.08.2020, deceased/Pappu @ Satar left his house. Thereafter, he committed suicide by hanging. This fact came to the knowledge of the son of deceased on 24.08.2020. He informed about alleged incident to the police. Marg was registered. It is found that Nasreen Bano is the daughter of deceased. The marriage of Nasreen Bano was solemnized with petitioner No. 2/accused on 01.03.2014. Petitioner No. 1/accused is father-in-law of Nasreen Bano. After the marriage, petitioners/accused humiliated and tortured the Nasreen Bano. After two month's of the marriage, the petitioners/accused threw the Nasreen Bano from her matrimonial house. At that time, she was pregnant. Due to this, Nasreen Bano was residing in the house of deceased. Petitioners/accused were humiliating the Nasreen Bano and not maintaining her. Due to aforesaid reason, the deceased was upset. On 23.08.2020, petitioners/accused reached at bus stand, Khargapur where they met deceased. Petitioners/accused humiliated the deceased and also told her to die. Petitioners/accused damaged the social reputation of deceased. They abetted the deceased to commit suicide, due to which she committed suicide.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners/accused have falsely been implicated in this case. Actually, the daughter of deceased did not want to reside at her matrimonial home. So, she voluntarily left the house of petitioners/accused. Petitioners/accused tried to keep the Nasreen Bano at her matrimonial home but she refused to live with petitioner No. 2/accused at her matrimonial house. In this regard, petitioners/accused conducted a Panchayat and also initiated a proceeding before the Police Paramarsh Kendra, Tikamgarh. But Nasreen Bano was not agreed to reside with petitioners/accused. On 23.08.2020, petitioners/accused went to the house of deceased. They wanted to solve the matter mutually as they desired to keep Nasreen Bano in their house, but Nasreen Bano refused to do so. Due to this, deceased was in depression. Petitioners/accused did not commit any offence. There is no material available on the record on which it can be said that petitioners/accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. So learned trial Court committed grave error in framing the charge of under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioners/accused. There is no ingredients of Section 107 of IPC available on the record on which it can be inferred or said that the petitioners/accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is an admitted fact that deceased did not leave any suicidal note. Learned trial Court did not consider the available material on the record. Therefore, impugned order is not proper. On these grounds learned counsel for the petitioners prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.12.2020 and petitioners/accused be discharged from the Section 306 of IPC.