DAMODAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 2. 6. 2005 passed by the Judge Special Court (Sati Nivaran), Rajasthan, Jaipur and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby he has framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Krishan Kumar committed suicide on 23. 5. 2004. About his death, his father, Lallu Lal Sain submitted a report to the police. On the basis of said report, a Inquest Report bearing NO. 9/2004 was chalked out. Fifteen days later during the course of inquiry, the police allegedly recovered a suicide note left by the deceased. According to the said suicide note, the deceased had borrowed Rs. 40,000/- from the petitioner but was unable to pay the same. In order to repay the said loan, he had further borrowed money from one Surendra Kumar Choudhary. However he was also unable to pay the said loan to Surendra Kumar Choudhary. Caught in a debt trap, the deceased decided to commit suicide. Eventually, the police registered a First Information Report against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC. Vide order dated 2. 6. 2005 the learned Special Judge framed the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) IN the instant case, the petitioner had given a loan of Rs. 40,000/- to the deceased. obviously, at that stage, the money was not given with the intention that the deceased should eventually commit suicide. Even subsequently, when the petitioner asked for the repayment o the loan, his intention was not to instigate or to aid the deceased to commit suicide. His intention was only that the money lent by him should be returned to him. IN order to repay the said loan, the deceased took another loan from the Surendra Kumar Choudhary. However, he could not repay the second loan either. Thus, the deceased was caught in a debt trap. Such a debt trap was not a creation of the petitioner's action but was created by the deceased himself. Unable to repay the two loans, the deceased appears to have taken the line of least resistance and to have committed suicide. Thus, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner instigated or aided the commission of suicide by the deceased. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC are singularly missing.