1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 731/2011 Bhagbai and another Vs. State of M.P. For the Applicant : Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate. For the Respondent : Smt Nirmala Nayak, GA ORDER (12/10/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. This revision is directed on behalf of the applicants under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.3.2011 passed by the Addl. Judge, Rehli to the Court of VIIth Addl.Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sagar, in S.T No.46/11 framing the charges against them for the offence under section 306/34 of the IPC. 2. The facts necessary to consider the question of admission of this revision in short are that on dated 10.3.2010 one Bhagat S/o Nabblu Lodhi R/o village Kheri Navda lodged marg intimation report at Police Station Garhakota contending that his son Raju had consumed poison, on which, for treatment he was taken to Garhakota, from where he was referred to Sagar, but on the way to Sagar, he died. In the course of inquiry of such marg, the spot-map and panchnama of the dead body was prepared. On sending the body to hospital its postmortem was also carried-out. After preserving the viscera of the deceased, the same was sent to Forensic Laboratory Sagar. On examination, in the viscera, Aluminum Phosphide, the poisonous substance was found. In further inquiry of said marg, it was revealed that before consuming the poisonous substance, the 2 present applicants had made allegations against his character with a criminal threat that they will lodge a false report against him alleging to have committed rape (jana) and, thereby they committed the act of harassment and cruelty. Due to such allegation the deceased was instigated to commit suicide and by consuming poisonous substance committed the same, on which, a crime of the offence of section 306 and 34 of IPC was registered against the applicants 3. In investigation, the interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded, other papers were prepared. On establishing the prima facie circumstance against the applicants for committing the offence of section 306 and section 34 of the IPC, they were charge-sheeted for the same. Subsequent to filing the charge-sheet, on committing the case to the Sessions Court, the charge of section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC was framed against the applicants. They abjured the guilt, on which, the trial has been directed. Being dissatisfied with such order, the applicants have come forward to this court with this revision. 4. Shri Priyank Choubey, learned counsel for the applicants after taking me through the papers of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the framed charges, argued that even on taking into consideration the face value of the papers of the charge sheet and accepting it in its entirety, the ingredients of the offence, for which the charges have been framed, are not made out against the applicants and by placing his reliance on a reported decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.-AIR 2002 SC 1998 and decision of this Court in the matter of Sita Vs. State of M.P.-2008(3) ILR S.N.74 prayed to discharge the applicants from the aforesaid charge by admitting and allowing this revision. 5. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel, after perusing the papers of the charge sheet along with the impugned order and the framed charges 3 placed on the record, I am of the considered view that there is sufficient evidence in the charge sheet collected by the investigating agency for framing the aforesaid charges and, in such premises, the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage. 6. As per the papers of the charge sheet, immediately after consuming the poisonous substance by deceased Raju, he was taken to the hospital by his father but after providing preliminary treatment at Garhakota, he was referred to Sagar for further treatment, on the way to Sagar, he died, on which his father Bhagat lodged the marg intimation report. In its inquiry, besides spot-map, the panchnama of the dead body was prepared and postmortem was also carried-out. On sending the viscera to the Forensic Laboratory Sagar, it was revealed that the applicant committed suicide by consuming the poisonous substance having the chemical of aluminum phosphide. On making further inquiry of such marg, some interrogation of the witnesses was made, on which, it was revealed that before consuming some poisonous substance by the deceased, on account of some quarrel, the present applicants, who are the husband and wife in relation, made serious allegations against the character of the deceased Raju and had also given criminal threat to lodge the false report against him for committing rape (Jana) and, due to such allegation and criminal threat, immediately after such incident, he consumed the alleged poisonous substance and thereby committed suicide, on which, crime No.251/2010 was registered at the Police Station Garhakota against the applicants for the offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC. In investigation, the interrogatory statement of various witnesses, namely, Laxmi Bai the mother of the deceased, Leela Bai, Ishwarlal, Gop Singh, Nanhe, Pintoo alias Bhagwan Das, the nearest relatives of the deceased, were recorded. In these interrogation, prima facie reveals that the present applicants had made false 4 allegations against deceased Raju that he entered in their house and, therefore, the applicants are going to lodge a report against him for committing the rape (Jana). On asking by the deceased not to defame him in this manner otherwise he will commit suicide; the applicants became angry and asked the deceased to die if he is from his real father. It is not the case that only some casual quarrel took-place between the parties in which deceased was asked by the applicants that he may go and die but it is the case of making allegations against the character of the deceased with a threat and intimidation to lodge a false report against him for committing the rape and due to such act of the applicants, the deceased was instigated to commit suicide and ultimately committed the same. Making allegations against the character and reputation of the person in the aforesaid manner, is sufficient to draw inference that due to such false allegations, the deceased might have come in depression and thereby committed suicide. So, in such factual matrix, the case law cited on behalf of the applicants in the matter of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and decision of this Court in the matter of Sita Vs. State of M.P.) (supra) being distinguishable on facts and circumstances are not helping to the applicants in the present matter for discharging him from the aforesaid alleged charge. 7. The allegations against the character, conduct and morality of the person are sufficient circumstances to draw an inference that the person who made such allegations has abetted the person, against whom such allegations were made and due to such allegations under such abetment and instigation, if the person like the deceased, has committed suicide then it could not be said that the ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide are not made out. Once, any of the ingredients of abetment defined under section 107 of the IPC, is revealed then it could be assumed that prima facie ingredient for framing the charge of section 306 5 IPC is available in the matter. In the present case, in view of the aforesaid discussion, sufficient prima facie evidence, showing that the deceased was instigated by the present applicants, is available in the charge sheet and, therefore, the case is squarely covered under section 107 read with section 306 of the IPC. The aforesaid act was committed by both the applicants in furtherance of their common intention and, therefore, the charge of section 34 of the IPC could not be said to be contrary to the available circumstance and the existing legal position. 8. My aforesaid approach is fully fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh-(2010) 1 SCC 750 in which it was held that on the allegations made by the accused applicants, against the character, conduct and morality of the deceased and due to such allegations, being hypersensitive the person like the deceased could not tolerate such allegations and by instigation of such allegation, proceeded to end his life and committed suicide, then prima facie it should be deemed that the person concerned who made the allegation against the deceased has instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and, in such premises, on examining the case at hand, the ingredients of abetment defined under section 107 of the IPC were found to be made out against the applicants. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any perversity, illegality, irregularity or any thing contrary to the propriety of the law in the order impugned framing the charge against the applicants requiring any interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Consequently, this revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 6