PARWATI PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by applicants against order dtd. 4/12/2021 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions Trial No.140/2021 whereby the application filed by them under Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging from offences under Sec. 306 and 506 of IPC has been dismissed.

(2.) As per prosecution case, the complainant lodged a complaint on 13/7/2021 stating that applicants assaulted the deceased as a result of which she committed suicide on 18/7/2021 by mentioning a note on her thigh with dot pen. Consequently, Crime No.428/2021 for offences under Sec. 306, 506 and 34 of IPC have been registered against the applicants. After investigation chargesheet has been filed in competent Court and as a result thereof Sessions Trial No.140/2021 has been registered. During trial the applicants filed an application (I.A.No.01/2021) under Sec. 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharging them from offences under Sec. 306 and 506 of IPC by stating that they have not assaulted the deceased on 13/7/2021 and she committed suicide on 18/7/2021, but in between she has not lodged any report against them. The trial Court dismissed said application by impugned order dtd. 4/12/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants have challenged the impugned order dtd. 4/12/2021 on the grounds that facts narrated in FIR are cooked up with a view to harass the applicants. Alleged incident of assault was said to have taken place on 13/7/2021, whereas suicide has been committed by deceased on 18/7/2021 and no report was lodged by the deceased between 13/7/2021 and 18/7/2021. The deceased was alive in between for 5 days and the applicants had not abetted her to commit suicide. The note written by the deceased on her thigh was not got examined through hand-writing expert wherefrom it can be ascertained that whether such note was written by the deceased or not. The court below has failed to appreciate aforesaid aspects of the matter and erroneously passed the impugned order. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Gopal Kaurav and others Vs. State of M.P. , 2014 (2) MPHT 343 in support of his case.