RAVIKANT VERMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 2.09.2015 passed by 9th ASJ, Gwalior, in S.T. No. 290/15 whereby charges under Sections 306 and 302 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner. Brief facts just necessary for disposal of the petition are on 20th March, 2015 Prahalad Das Verma found hanged at his residence in the railing of his house. On this intimation, merg No. 16/15 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was lodged. During enquiry it is found that deceased Prahlad Das Verma aged about 80 years died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. Deceased Prahlad's son, the present petitioner, Ravikant Verma, was pressurizing him and was harassing him to transfer the house into his name. Because of this harassment, deceased Prahlad committed suicide. The statements of the widow of the deceased, Rakesh and Virendra, other sons of the deceased have stated in their statements that, Ravikant was pressurizing the deceased to transfer the house in his name. It is also stated that he was threatening him of self immolation. Because of this harassment, he left for Panipat and Agra to join some service. Because of ill health he returned back three years back. But the behaviour of Ravikant did not change. He had been abusing his father and mother. Because of which, deceased had taken such a drastic step to end his life.

(2.) In S.T. No. 290/15, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner under Section 306 of IPC. The learned 9th ASJ, framed charges under Section 306 IPC in alternative 302 of IPC, rejecting the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner/accused assailed this order and framed charge, on the ground that report was lodged by the petitioner himself about the death of the deceased. The conduct of petitioner was bona fide and honest. There is no criminal antecedent. There was a dispute of property for a long period in the past. Father of the petitioner disowned the petitioner from his property and had issued a notice to the petitioner. The statements of the petitioner's mother and brothers shows that dispute was purely about property which existed since last two years. The other witnesses Kishanlal and Ashok have also agreed that there existed some dispute for a long time. There was no immediate nexus between the said dispute or cruelty and the committing suicide. The deceased and his two sons had never approached to any Court for redressal of grievances. The petitioner never encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredients of Section 107 of IPC regarding abetment to commit suicide is completely lacking in the case.