RAM NARESH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the applicants against the order dated 7-12-2001 passed by Special Judge, Dewas in S. T. No. 58/2001 framing charge for the offence under Section 306 framing charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Police Station, Tonk Khurd, Distt. Dewas has filed charge-sheet against the applicants and other accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34, IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short was that the deceased Narayan s/o Babulal Manguolia had taken loan from the applicants and non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. These loans were raised by him at different point of time from the accused persons. Thereafter he failed to repay the same as per the terms and conditions because of which the applicants were demanding the said loan with interest and torturing the deceased Narayan. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the applicants Ram Naresh and Devendra were visiting his house again and again and degraded him by demanding money with interest. All the accused persons were delivering threat to him for payment of money and if the same will not be paid he will have to vacate the house. The applicants had also threatened for throwing the assets and house belongings on the road. Because of persistent demand by the applicants and accused persons one day under frustration the deceased Narayan committed suicide.

(3.) THE Trial Court on the aforesaid facts framed charges against the applicants under Section 306 read with Section 34, IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that even if the complete prosecution case is accepted as it is, there are no elements present for making out the prima facie case worth punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34, IPC because the applicants were demanding their money and by that day did not intend to abet for commission of suicide of the deceased Narayan because he was not able to pay loan and because of that he might have committed suicide that may be the reason for suicide but the same reason cannot be construed as abetment to commit suicide. He further submits that the abetment is defined under Section 107, IPC and none of the ingredients are present in the complete charge-sheet therefore the trial is none but an abuse of process of Court of law, hence in the interest of justice, this Court may set aside the order of framing charge and quash the whole proceedings.