SHAILENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FROM the perusal of the copies of the challan papers filed by the applicants, it is found that there is evidence to the effect that applicants used to tease and assault the deceased and the deceased was driven out from their house by them and two months prior to the date of incident i.e. the commitment of suicide. According to the prosecution, applicant Shailendra, the husband of the deceased, went to the parental house of the deceased on 15.7.2004 to bring deceased Sunita with him. There is evidence to the effect that he asked deceased Sunita to apologize his mother and sister Guddibai. He also told her that in case she does not beg apology from them, he will not take her to her marital house with him. It is said that due to this, deceased Sunita took celphos tablets which caused her death.

(2.) IT has been held in number of cases repeatedly by this Court and by Hon'ble apex Court that in order to bring home the charge under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of abetment as defined in section 107 of Indian Penal Code should be made out. A person is said to abet the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an actor illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aid, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The evidence as discussed above which is sought to be produced by the prosecution against the applicants does not disclose any of the ingredients of abetment. Asking deceased to apologize her mother-in-law and sister-in-law cannot by any stretch of imagination be equated to the abetment of suicide.

(3.) ACCORDING to the explanation attached to section 113A of Indian Evidence Act 'cruelty' for the purpose of this section shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. As it is evident from what has been stated above, that there is no material to presume that the applicant subjected the deceased to cruelty. In such a situation, the presumption under section 113A of Indian Evidence Act is also not available against the accused. From the above discussion, it is clear that even if the entire prosecution evidence is taken for granted, it will not be possible to hold the applicants guilty under section 306 or 498A of Indian Penal Code or any other offence is also not made out on the basis of prosecution evidence. Presumption under section 304B of Indian Penal Code and that under section 113A of Indian Evidence Act can also not be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. In such a situation, the trial of the applicants may be of futile exercise. Consequently, this revision is allowed. The impugned order of framing of charge under section 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code against the applicants is set aside and they are directed to be discharged. As the revision has been finally decided, no need to pass any order on I.A. No. 241/2005 for stay. Hence, it is disposed of.