SUNIL JAIN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Section 397, read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed to assail the order dated 26.03.2018, passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in S.T. No. 42/2018, wherein charges have been framed against the petitioners, for offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, the petitioner No.2 Manoj Rathore, Petitioner No.3 Kapil and Petitioner No.4 Rajesh Rathore lent money to the deceased Vijay Tamrakar, who was running a utensils' shop. Accused No.1 Sunil Jain, accused No.5 Liyakat Khan, accused No.8 Javed alias Tantu had borrowed money from the deceased and did not repay the same. Because of the harassments caused by the accused persons, by not returning his money and by causing threats to him, deceased Vijay Tamrakar, was so harassed that he jumped into the well and committed suicide. On 01.09.2017, his dead body was found in the well near the temple. A "suicide note" written by the deceased was recovered during the investigation. After the inquest report, Crime No. 757/2017 was registered at Kotwali Sehore, for offence under Section 306, read with Section 34 of the IPC. After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. The same was submitted to the Court of Sessions. The Third Additional Sessions Judge has framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners, the said order is assailed on the ground that Vijay Tamrakar is a businessman and because of his financial crunches he committed suicide. The case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is also pending against him. The deceased allegedly written a "suicide note". Original of which is not available and the photocopy of the same is not admissible in evidence. Even if the photocopy is taken to be correct, the allegations levelled in the suicide note do not constitute any offence of abetment to commit suicide, there has been mentioned of the borrowed money and about the transactions, therefore, the petitioners are not liable for any offence. The merg statements categorically state that the deceased was in very difficult position and was unable to bear responsibilities. The petitioners are neither abettors nor they abetted the deceased to commit suicide.