CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is preferred under Sec. 14A of SC/ST (POA) Act to challenge the order dtd. 3/2/2020 in Sessions Case No. 62/2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Bundi whereby charges under Ss. 306 and 504 IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act were framed.

(2.) Learned counsel for appellant while referring the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of MP (1995) Supp (3) SCC, S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190, Ganguly Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 and M. Arjuna Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315 and cases of this Hon'ble Court Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan 1995 CRI.L.J. 3066 and Aroma M. Philemon (smt.) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2015 (1) RLW 733 (Raj.) submitted that on the basis of a report, the deceased had committed suicide, a case was registered at P.S. Taleda and during investigation a suicide note was recovered. He further submitted that a stereotype statement of witnesses was recorded and they had clearly stated that deceased was a public servant and due to certain altercations with appellant, he committed suicide. He further referred the statements as recorded by police and submitted that these altercations were not enough to interfere with any act of abetment caused by appellant and that the act was not sufficient to interfere that a direct or live act of suicide was forced upon the deceased. He further submitted that the statement of witnesses indicate that the deceased was advised by his colleague that since they are public servants, while serving the duty, normal altercations take place and we cannot take that as too serious. He submitted that without any basis, a charge-sheet was filed by the police and without application of mind, learned trial Court had framed charge. While referring the provisions of Ss. 107 and 306 IPC, he further submitted that in case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down that the instigation must be enough or specific and suggestive of consequence but herein no such evidence on record is available to suggest that appellant accused had ever instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that in case of State of West Bengal versus Orilal Jaisawal, Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly laid down that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and if it appears that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance and differences then the accused should not be charged for abetting the offence of suicide. He further referred the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. Arjunan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police and submitted that use of abusive language and insult, if any, caused to deceased will not by itself constitute the abetment of suicide unless there is evidence to suggest that the accused intended by that very act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. He further referred the judgments of this Court and submitted that only on the basis of oral evidence, having no direct link with the appellant accused, learned trial Court had framed the charges and the same is liable to be interfered.

(3.) Aforesaid contentions are opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that respondent-complainant was informed regarding filing of present appeal but despite service, none appeared on behalf of respondent-complainant.