BANKELAL SONI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants-accused have filed this revision under section 397/401 of the CrPC, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Singrauli in S. T. No. 52/11 framing the charge against each of them for the offence of sections 306 and 306/34 of the IPC. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that on 12.9.2010 at about 1:50 O'clock in the night at the instance of one Kanhaiyalal Soni a marg intimation regarding unnatural death of Asha Devi Soni was registered at P. S. Waidhan district Singrauli contending that yesterday on 11.9.2010 at about 11 O'clock in the morning, Smt. Asha Devi Soni w/o Shyam Babu Soni, the daugther-in-law of his elder brother Late Munnilal Soni, after bolting the door of the room from inside and pouring kerosene, set fire on herself. On coming to know about such incident, Vishnu Soni s/o Pyarelal Soni, Dipak s/o Munnilal and Upendra Soni, the servant of the shop, opened the door where said Asha Devi, after sustaining the burn injuries, was lying on the floor. Immediately thereafter she was taken to the Nehru Hospital for treatment where her dying declaration was recorded and after providing initial treatment, looking to the nature of the injuries, she was referred for further treatment to Banaras. On the way, she died, on which, her dead body was brought back and kept in the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Waidhan. She died because of the burn injuries. Why she committed such act, he does not know anything about it. In the course of its inquiry, after preparing the Panchnama of the dead body, the post-mortem was carried out. Besides the dying declaration of the deceased the interrogatory statements of her husband Shyam Babu and her daughter Ku. Jyoti were recorded on which, it was revealed that after partition between said Shyambabu and other members of the family, they were residing separately in the same house but in separate rooms. In regular course the deceased was subjected to harassment and torture by her elder brother-in-law Shivbabu, sister-in-law Sunita Soni, brother-in-law Banke Soni, sister-in-law Anita Soni and nephew Amit Soni, and on the aforesaid date of incident 11.9.2010 at about 9 O'clock, deceased was subjected to abuse and quarrel by said Anita Soni, Banke Soni, Shivbabu Soni and Amit Soni. Due to such harassment and torture of the applicants, the deceased was abetted and instigated to commit suicide and, pursuant to that by pouring kerosene and setting fire on herself, sustained burn injuries and succumbed to the same, on which, Crime No. 62/10 was registered against the applicants on dated 16.9.2010 against the applicants for the offence under section 306/34 of the IPC. After making interrogation of the witnesses and preparing the requisite papers, on completion of the investigation, prima facie it was revealed that the deceased committed suicide due to abetment given by the applicants in furtherance of their common intention. Consequently they were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

(2.) After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge-sheet the charges of sections 306 and 306/34 of the IPC was framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt and being aggrieved by such order, framing the charges, they have come to this Court with this revision.

(3.) Shri A. P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants after taking me through the papers of the charge-sheet along with the impugned order and the charges framed argued that taking into consideration the face value of the entire charge-sheet including the interrogatory statements of the witnesses as accepted in its entirety, the ingredients of the alleged offence of section 306 of the IPC or the ingredients defined under section 107 of the IPC are not made out against any of the applicants but contrary to the evidence collected by the investigating agency, mere on imagination and assumption, the aforesaid charge has been framed against the applicants under wrong premises. In continuation, he said that after partition of the family and division of the property, the applicants and the family branch of the deceased were residing separately in some part (rooms) of the same premises, given to the concerning member and branch of the family. So, there was no any inter se relations between the applicants and the deceased family in regular course of the life and, in such premises, there was no occasion to give any harassment, torture, instigation or any abetment to the deceased by the applicants, on which it could be assumed that due to any such act of the applicants, the deceased committed suicide. He further argued that due to inimical relations between different branch of the family, subsequent to committing suicide by Asha Devi, the applicants have been implicated on the false pretext. With these submissions, he said that the impugned charge framed by the trial Court is not sustainable under the law and in such premises prayed to set aside the impugned order and discharge the applicants by allowing this revision.