GOPAL KAURAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, heard them finally. The applicants have challenged the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 37/2012, whereby the charges of offence punishable under Sections 306 or 306/34 of IPC were framed against the applicants.

(2.) The prosecution's case, in short, is that, the victim Kamlesh was assaulted by the applicants with the pretext that daughter of Kamlesh would be taken by the applicant Hargovind Kaurav and he would keep the daughter of the victim. After 4-5 days of the incident, the deceased committed suicide by jumping before a train. He left a suicidal note in his pocket in which he narrated the entire story and prayed that the applicants be punished.

(3.) For framing of charges, no rebuttal evidence can be seen. By evidence collected by the prosecution, in absence of any rebuttal, if any accused can be convicted for any particular offence then, charges of that offence shall be framed. In the present case, evidence collected by the prosecution indicates that the deceased Kamlesh committed suicide after 5-6 days of the incident of assault. Since he left a suicidal note, therefore, prima facie it shall be presumed that he has committed suicide. It is apparent from the record that Ramdevi, daughter of the deceased was not taken by any of the applicants prior to the incident and therefore, no harassment was done by the applicants to the daughter of the deceased Kamlesh. If suicidal note given by the deceased Kamlesh is considered as it is then, it would be apparent that the applicants shown their intention that daughter of the deceased Kamlesh would be kept by the applicant Hargovind. However, the overt-acts of the applicants was that they assaulted the victim. Under such circumstances, if the overt-act of the applicants as mentioned in the suicidal note is considered then, it cannot be said that the applicants abated the deceased to commit suicide. Their overt-acts do not fall within the purview of Sections 107 or 109 of IPC and therefore, prima facie no offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicants. It is the settled view of Hon'ble the Apex Court that if a person is left in such a position that he has no option except to commit suicide then, offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC shall be made out. In the present case, the situation is different, the applicants did not leave the deceased in such a position that he has no option except to commit suicide. The deceased has his brothers, father and other supporters in support of him. He committed suicide after 4-5 days of the incident. He could lodge an FIR against the applicants before the concerned police station or he could refer the matter to the Panchayat. Instead of doing the legal activities, the deceased committed suicide. Under such circumstances, it is possible that he took such a step due to his sentiments or he felt insulted by the conduct of the applicants but, it cannot be said that he has no option except to commit suicide. Under such circumstances, if the deceased committed suicide due to his own sentiments then, by his sentiments, the applicants cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. As per suicidal note, he requested that the applicants be punished for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but, his wishes could not be fulfilled. Similarly if he has committed suicide due to his sentimental condition of mind then, due to that suicide, it cannot be said that the applicants abated him to commit suicide.