SANDEEP TIWARI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is posted on admission; however, since the respondent is represented and the case diary is available, the criminal revision is admitted and heard finally be consent. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 17 -10 -2014 passed by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur, in Sessions Trial No.265/2014, whereby a charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed against accused/petitioner Sandeep Tiwari. Case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Yogesh Soni was a motor fitter.

(2.) He had taken a loan in the sum of Rs.5600/ - from some person. Petitioner/accused Sandeep @ Chhuttan Tiwari was middle man in the matter. On 13 -03 -2013, deceased Yogesh Soni had gone to Tehsil office at Narsinghpur whereon accused Chhuttan Tiwari and another person came and claimed that deceased was given Rs.10,000/ - at the rate of 10% per month two months ago; therefore, the loan be repayed immediately. They also threatened to beat him and cause harm to his family. Thereon, deceased Yogesh gave the registration card of his motor cycle to him. When the deceased went to re -claim his card, they obtained his signatures on two documents. They caught hold of his shirt - collar and slapped him twice. In the result, the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison on 03 -04 -2013. Laxmi Soni, wife of the deceased, has stated under section 161 that in order to create pressure upon deceased Yogesh, accused Chhuttan @ Sandeep Tiwari used to misbehave with the deceased and humiliate him publicly and also by visiting his home. Therefore, he was compelled to commit suicide. Inviting attention of the Court to various judgments, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner/accused that even if all the allegations made against him are taken at their face value, his act and conduct would not fall under the ambit of abetment of suicide.

(3.) Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order mainly on the ground that the deceased was given loan at usurious rates of interest and he was repeatedly harassed and humiliated by the accused for repayment of loan. Therefore, he was compelled to commit suicide.