NARESH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these revision petitions have arisen out of the same impugned order dtd. 27/9/2021 passed by the 2nd ASJ, Ujjain, whereby charge has been framed against the petitioners under Sec. 306 of IPC, therefore, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased Shubham Khandelwal was working as a licensee contractor at Municipal Corporation, Indore. He has committed suicide by causing accident of his car with another car. During the Merg enquiry, suicide note was recovered from his car and in the further enquiry it has been gathered that deceased was being harassed by Sub Engineer Naresh Jain, Sanjay Khujneri and Chinu and other persons. They were demanding illegal money/bribe from him. The deceased has sent so many complaints to the Chief Minister and other ministers of Government of M.P. against the corruption done by the accused persons. Prior to the accident, deceased also tried to commit suicide by consuming poisonous substance sulfas. On account of the harassment soon before the death, deceased Shubham Khandelwal committed suicide, therefore, offence has been registered under Sec. 306 IPC against the present petitioners and other coaccused persons. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Learned trial court after perusal of the entire evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that prima facie charge under Sec. 306 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioners have preferred these revision petitions.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner Naresh submits that it is the initial case of the prosecution that the decease had suffered motor accident injuries and the prosecution is unable to prove suicide in the case. The petitioner was a government servant while discharging his official duty. He passed the bill and he was not the person who had to release the fund. Sanction from the competent authority was not obtained. He further submits that if the complete case of the prosecution is accepted, even then the ingredients of Sec. 107 of IPC are completely missing in this case and no case is made out as mere harassment does not fall within the category of abetment. He submits that the petitioner never abetted the deceased and there is no document on record to prove that he ever harassed the deceased. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, the entire prosecution case is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the accused persons never abetted or instigated the deceased for commission of suicide. In the above circumstances, he prays that charges framed by the lower court be set aside and the petitioner be discharged from the charge under Sec. 306 of IPC.