PARMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M. P .

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS have filed this revision against the order dated 16.9.2006, passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, in Sessions Trial No. 414/ 2005, framing the charge against the applicants u/s. 306/34 of IPC.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case is that on 18.7.2005, when Vijay Saraf (deceased) was in Court premises at Bina, applicants forcibly took him on a motorcycle, assaulted him and made him to sign some papers. Being harassed and frustrated, on 19.7.2005, Vijay consumed poison (Sulphas) and committed suicide. According to postmortem examination report, death was caused by cardio-respiratory failure, as a result of suspected poisoning. On receiving the report about his death, police registered a murg and enquired into the matter. On enquiry, it was found that after doing his MBA, deceased entered into partnership with Manish Shrivastava and obtained dealership of Indo-Farma Tractor. Both of them borrowed huge amount of money, but subsequently they incurred losses. According to prosecution, Manish Shrivastava was liable to make good all the losses, but he did not do so. It is said that the applicants had also advanced money to them, but when deceased did not repay their money, they harassed and intimidated him. On 21.5.2005 applicants assaulted Uma Shanker, the younger brother of the deceased, and again on 18.7.2005, when the deceased had gone to the Court, he was forcibly taken away by them and was assaulted and compelled to sign some papers. Subsequently Vijay had been freed by them and was left by the applicants in the Court. On 19.7.2005, when he was at his house, after taking meals, he went to a temple and consumed poison. This fact was intimated to his father by the priest of the temple. He was sent for the treatment, but despite efforts, he could not be saved.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submitted that even on accepting all the facts, alleged by the prosecution, as they are, no offence u/s. 306 of IPC is made out, as no ingredient of the offence u/s. 107 of IPC are present, which are required for constituting the offence of abetment to commit suicide. According to him, in the absence of material on record, constituting the ingredients of aforesaid offences, no charge u/s. 306 of IPC could be framed against the applicants.