[CASE NUMBER] ([PRECEDENT] 13.2.2013
Petitioners by Shri [ENTITY], Advocate. State by Shri [ENTITY], Panel Lawyer. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 7.5.2012 passed in [CASE NUMBER] by Sessions Judge, Jabalpur framing charge under [SECTION] [ACT] against the petitioners.
According to prosecution, deceased was the tenant of petitioners in a shop doing grocery business. On 15.9.2011 and 16.9.2011 petitioners threatened the deceased and asked him to vacate the shop. Having felt tortured by constant abuses and threats, on 17.9.2011 deceased consumed poisonous substance. During treatment in National Hospital, Jabalpur, on 17.9.2011 deceased died.
On 27.12.2011 Police Katangi registered a case at [CASE NUMBER] under [SECTION] [ACT] against the petitioners. During investigation statement of wife of deceased recorded alongwith other witnesses. After completing the investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners.
Order of framing of charge is challenged on the grounds that it was lacking of evidence to presume ingredients as defined and required under [SECTION] [ACT], necessary for registration of case under [SECTION] [ACT].
Placing reliance on [PRECEDENT], learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in present charge-sheet no evidence is available indicative of mental process of petitioners to instigate the deceased or intentionally adding him to commit suicide. No positive act whatsoever has been assigned to the petitioners which ultimately resulted in his death of the deceased by consuming poison by him.
Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer submits that on the basis of this charge-sheet conviction under [SECTION] [ACT] would be possible or not is quite a different thing. At this stage, matter has to be considered, whether prima-facie material for framing of charge is available or not ?.
Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on [PRECEDENT] further submits that petitioners cannot be blamed for hypersensitive attitude of the deceased if out of emotion, he chose to end his life because he could not sustain the pressure of mal-behaviour of the petitioners. Similarly, learned counsel placed reliance on judgment of Coordinate Benches of this Court like [PRECEDENT] and judgment dated 30.8.2012 passed in [PRECEDENT] and submitted that abuses and threats of petitioners will not amount to abatement, for the act of suicide of the deceased.
On perusal of present charge-sheet, it is revealed that prior to commission suicide by deceased he was subjected to constant threat and harassment for vacating the shop of the petitioners taken by him on rent from them. In same sequence, after sustaining the pressure for few days, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide. It is a matter of fact that can be appreciate in trial whether such acts/ conduct of the petitioners have driven the deceased to commit suicide or the deceased was a hypersensitive person who himself chose his life for none of the fault of the petitioners.
According to [SECTION] [ACT], a person can be discharged of the offence by Sessions Court only when Court finds case to be groundless against him. Even if some material is there to presume against the petitioners then offence has been committed in this incident, then trial court left with no other option but to frame the charges.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, there appears no error or illegality in order of framing of charge. Whatever has been averred in the petition, at the best, can be a defence of the petitioners, may be established in trial during evidence. Petition being devoid of substance and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Needless to right that this court has not expressed any opinion on facts and circumstances of the case. Trial court shall remain uninfluenced while dealing with the matter in trial.
([ENTITY]) Judge YS/