JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that there is no basis for framing a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He submits that the order passed by the Court below on 26th of April, 1994 and the consequent charge framed under Section 306 is liable to be set aside. The brief facts for the purposes of this petition be noticed as under: There is a dying declaration of Deokinandan deceased. He stated as under: (English rendering) Jagdish Agrawal keeps on harassing (pareshan) me. In spite of the fact that complaints have been lodged, he does not pay any heed. For this reason, I have taken Dawa.' By DawaT he meant the medicine which was kept for preserving food grains. He has further stated that: "I worship at Bhujariyan Talab temple. By making me run away from there, he wants to occupy the temple. For this purpose, I was perturbed (pareshan). He has been harassing me for the last three-four years. To the same effect is the statement of other witnesses recorded during investigation.

(2.) The short question which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is not a case which would fall under Section 306 of I.P.C. He further submits that none of the ingredients of abetment as used in Section 107 of the I.P.C. are attracted in the instance case. This section reads as under:

(3.) In Dinesh Chandra v. State of M.P., the person who committed suicide made a statement to the effect that he wants to put an end to his life as he is being harassed by his father, brother and sister-in-law. He had further stated that he is going to a place where there would be none to harass (pareshan) him.