CHANDRAPRAKASH @ PAPPU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition preferred u/s. 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code') being aggrieved by order dated 11/01/2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Manasa, District Neemuch in S.T. No. 35/2017, whereby charge for offence u/s. 306 of the IPC has been framed against the applicant.

(2.) The facts of the case are in brief that the deceased- Mahesh Kumar Soni was running a clinic at Sadar Bazar, Bhatakhedi. On 31/01/2017, at about 17:00 p.m., he committed suicide by hanging. On receiving the information regarding the incident the Merg No. 05/2017 was registered was registered by Police Station-Manasa, District-Neemuchg under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. During enquiry it was found that the deceased left a suicide note, in which the present applicant was blamed for his suicide. According to the suicide note the deceased has given Rs.9,60,000/- to the applicant, however, he has not executed the sale-deed of the house and denied for receiving the amount. After recording the statement of the witnesses, Police registered FIR against the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the allegations made by the deceased in the suicide-note, said to have been left by him, even if accepted in their entirety, do not make out a case u/s. 306 of the IPC . It is submitted that to constitute abetment within the meaning of Section 107 read with Section 306 of the IPC, there should be instigation, provocation, incitement, suggestion, persuasion or goading to commit suicide and that, the accused must have intended that the deceased commits suicide. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 S.C. 1998 and Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.