LAWS(MPH)-2004-6-3

JUGAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On June 22, 2004
JUGAL KISHORE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision arises out of an order dated 10.9.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, in Sessions Trial No. 97/2002, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the contentions of the applicant and framed a charge under Section 306 of the I PC.

(2.) It appears from the record that deceased Durga Banjara had purchased a tractor on bank loan. One-fourth of the loan amount being Rs. 90,000/- was paid to the Bank, after taking loan from the accused applicant Jugal Kishore. As the deceased was not in position to pay back the loan on due date, the accused appli-cant took away his tractor. However, subsequently the same was returned to the deceased after he made a part pay-ment of Rs. 30,000/-. A demand for pay-ment of outstanding loan amount of Rs. 60,000/- was made by the accused appli-cant. He visited the residence of the deceased in that connection who assured to make payment by selling out gold orna-ments. The accused advised the deceased to hand over him the said ornaments and meet him in his village to settle the accounts. It also appears that the deceased accordingly went to village of the accused on the same day, but he was told that the accounts could not be settled because the Bank had organized a camp on that day. It also appears that the deceased again visited the accused next day with one Laxmi Narayan, but he was ill-treated and threatened with police action. And his accounts were not settled. The deceased is said to have returned home. He went to his field where he con-sumed some poisonous substance and started vomiting. He was taken to a hospital where he died. It also appears that he left a suicide note, wherein he mentioned that his accounts were not settled by the accused who accompanied by two other persons was standing with lathis and also threatened him with police action. Accordingly, a Marg was registered and on inquiry FIR was lodged. Ultimately on investigation, Police laid a challan and the Court framed a charge under Section 306, IPC.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.