^i ^ ' Singfe'Bench,('-nn3fna^ IN THE : HIGH COUR3: O? - ^pDICM'UjRE ;AT . JASALPUE .:•£, CnmJ-nal Appeal No.SS^ Qf 199-7 (MemoranduCT of Crimina.l Appeal -U/section '374 Cr»P.C«) &PPELIANT n .JCLA. Mohad Xial S/o Raghunath Sanu.aged . 27 y'ears, .occupation laKourer resident; of Vj-llage. Plpa.rcbe:(3i.',tliana Rajira, tahs.ll Rajim district Raipur* •Versus IWSPOITGENT ''.Tl-ie St.ace of Madhya Pradesh, :through' D'lstrict Mag.i-strate,: Kalpur (MP) tEi^OSAMDUM OF CRInIIiKL AEEEAI. UNDER SsCTIOK 37 4 OF Cr.P >. / ^^S.SS3i^ ^3 HIGH COURTOP CHHAmSOARM AT BBUU8PI»R SBj^HCTt'BUBMR. JUSnOB PRITimflBR DIWAKBR APPEULANT RB8POIIDBKT <;R.A.MQ. 385/1997 MohaiLal veiaus 'jStateofM.P. „.-<• .. IIV' Shri Sunfl Sahu, counsel fi>r fhe qppeUaat. Sliri Nceraj Mehta, P.L. for the State. MBMO OP APPEAL ONDBR SBCTOOai 374 OP THB CQE®OIP cmaimAL PROCT!DBRB ORDER (07.07.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.1.97 passed by the Additiotial Sessions Judge, Dhamtari in S.T. No, 313/96 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenciag him to undergo RI for five yeazs aad fiae ofRs. 1000, ia dcfault of payment offine to furtber undeigo RI for one year. 2. Brief facts of ttie case are that aiarriage «rf the accused/appcUaat and Saxitoslu Bai (since dcccased) was solemiuzed about S years prior to thc date of mcident i.e. on 6.1.96 aad abe. suffered 100 % bura .injunes ia her niatrfmonial house and succunibed to tfae tnjiuies ia thc hospital. Mcrg intiination Ex.P/7 was given by Dr. K.K.Soiii (P.W.-7) wlucfa. was registered by G.S.KuruwansIu (P.W.-6). After merg enquiiy on 16.1.96 FIR Bx.P/9 was registexc4/under Section 306 IPC. ChaBaa was flled on 16^.96 under Secti<A 306 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accnsed/appeBaat guflty the prosecutioa has exaauned as maay as 08 witnesses. Stateiaent of fhc accuscd/appcUaat was also recoided imder Section 313 of ffae Cr.P.C. ia which hc denied fhe cbarges alleged ^aanst him and pleaded his uuiocence and false iatplication in. the case. TUs apart orie defcnce witncss' has also bcen eiEamincd. "-U. .1;' :'^/' ".^;';'.£k ';] ^' /^ ^iy.<f ^ 4. After hearing couneel for the parties, fhc trial Court has convfcted liim imder Seetion 306 IPC and senteacrt him as inentioncd above. Heace ttus appcal. 5. Contentton of Shri Sahu, coiuisel for fhe appdlant is fhat present is a case of accident where fhe deceased difid wtifle po-uriag kerosene oil in fhe lainp. He sjybmlts fhat even if the entire prosecution case is taken as At is, fhc o'fifence lutdcr Sectfoa 306 IPC is not inade out as fhe ingtedients of abetmeat laid down in sectkm 107 IPC are totaUy missing in ttais case. He furfher submits that Jaaak Raai (P.W.-2) fafher offhe detxased has categoricalty deposed in fhe coart that thc deceased -waa lising a happy niarricd life aad Iiad not complaiacd whatsoever. 1 6. On fhe other hand, supporting the impugned judgment, couasel for the State submits that the deceased was subjected to cruelly to flie extent where she was left wifh no option but to conmut siucide and thus fhe same beiag whoUy justified does not icquire aay interfercnce ia appeal. If. I have heard leamed counsel for flie parties at ta^titi and peruscd fhe record including fhe napugaed judgmcnt Champa Bai (P.W.-l) inofher of fhe deceased has stated tiaat fhe naarriage of fhe accused/appenant aad her daughter (since dcceased) was solemiuzed about 5-6 years prior to fhe date of iacident and at fhe eve of Tee?ufestival she had iaformed her fhat the accuscd/appeUaat used to beat her. She has further rtated that Itoe accused/appeUant used to suspect about hcr iUidt relation witti her laadlont. She has also aUegpd that under govcnunent scheBae Rs. §10,000was gn'en to her <laughter as loaa wifh thc condition fhat if ffae accused/appcUant wiU iH-treat her the entire amount of toan wo-uld be recovered fiom him. She has furfher aflegcd fhat tbey had tried to Baal!a'-the accused/appellant understand aiid not to baa-ass tfac deceased but he continued to harass her. Jsmsik Ram (P.W.-2) fe.fher of ttic deceased in his court stateinent has fhough inade aBegation of cruelly as has been made by hls wifc Chdm.pa Bai (P.W.-l) in paia 12 ofthe cross exaaaination he has categoricaUy stated that fhe deceased has not iaformed him about aay cruelt}'' and on fhe contraiy shc used to teacb hiiBi aad she also used to advise hiia. He has adaaitted the fect that iffhe dcceascd advised him ia such a niaancr ftien she nught be ruuning her famify smoofhly. Hc has alao adinitted fhe fact that fbc deceased had iafonned tiiTn fhat she is Uving hapjuty. Mohit Ram Sahiu (P.W.-3) af^esas to bc biother of fhe deceased in relatton has not made any aUcgatioa a^iast fhe accuscd/appeUant aad has been declared hostite. Gurdev (P.W.-4) te the laudlord ofthe accused/appeUant and fhe deceased has initiaUy made som.e aUegation against fhe accused/appeflaat. In para 7 toc has categoricaUy admitted fhe fact that the rdation teetween fhe accused/appeBant and the deceased were veiy cordlal aad fhey never uscd to qiiarrel. He has furfher stated that when fhe deceased was brought to the hospital in a tractor she ~was in a position to spcafa and faad requested him to save her husband ie. the accused/appeUaat as he was not guitty. Gaya_Ram (P.W.-5) is thc im^uest witnessof Ex.P/2, P/3 & witness of fhe spot map Ex.P/6 has not made aay aUegatkin ^aiast fhe accused/appeBaat and on fhe contraiy has stated fhat when thc deceased waa beiag shiBed to fhe hospital in tractor ^he was requesting to save h.er husbaad by saying that her husband is aot at faiilt aod fhercfore he bc savcd. G.S.Kuruwanshl (P.W.-6) 1s fhe Investigattag Ofifcer. Dr. K.K.SOIU (P.W.-7) had given merg intimation. Champi Bai (P.W.-8) aiuit of the deceascd has not made aay allegattoa against the aceused/ appeUaat. The^Acfence witacss Maaoj Kuinar Sharma is a ueighbour of < / fhe accused/appeUant has stated fhat the iclation between thc accused/appcllaat and deceased were cordial. 8. To convict the appeUant/accused under Section 306 IPC the prosccution is requlred to prove ttie basic iagnedients ofSection 306 IPC. Sections 306 and 107 offhe Indiaea Penal Code rcad as under: '"SOe.Abetmen.t of sulclde.—Ifaay peraon commits suicide, whoever abets the commissioa of auch. suicide, ''306-Abetmeat of anlclde.—tf any person comnutB stiicide, whoever abets fhe Gonunission of such siucide, shatl be puiushed wifh im.prisonment of eifher descriptiou for a tenn which may extead to ten ycars, and shall also be Uable to fine. 107. Abetment of a thlng.—A person abcte thc domg of afhing,who— "/ Pirst.— Iast%ates aay person to do that thing; or SecowSy.— Ei^agcs wifh oite or inore other person or persons in aay consfaracy for the doii^ of fhat fhlag, if an act or illegal omission takes place ia puisuance of that conspiracy, and in order to fhe doit^ offhat fhing; or Thirdhf.— IntentiotiaUy aids, by any aot or iUegal omission, ffae doiag ofthat thing. BKpJanattpn 1.— A pcrson who, by wiHfiil nusreprescntation, or by willful concealment ofa naateiial feict which he is bound to disclose, voluntarity causes or procures, or atteinpts to cause or proczu-e, a thn^ to be done, is said to iastigate fhe doiug oftbat ttung. Ejiplcma.tian 2.— Wboever, dtther pEka- to or at fhe tinae of fhe cotninission of an act, does anyfhmg ia oricr to fe.cilltate fhe cominjssfon of fhat act, and fherBby facflitate the commission fhereof, is said to sSd tfae domg of fhat act* / 9. Keeping ia vicw the lugredicnts of Sections 306 and 107 IPC and the fect that the witacsscs havc deposed fhat the rdation betiween the accused/apjpellaat aad the deeeased wcre vcry cord.lal and even when she'was ^iifted to hospital ia a tractor she requested to save her husbaad i.e. (he accused/appeUant, I am of the considered view fbat thc ingredients of 'abetmcnf saae totalty abseat in fhc iastant case for.an otfence under Section 306 IPC. An ofifence under Section 306 IPC is not aiade out a^ingt the appeUant/ accused. 10. Ia fhe result, the cruninal appeal succeeds and is allowed. The uapugaed judgment oflitie Court below convictiag aud sentencmg fhe appeUaat/accused uader Sectioni 306 ofthe Indiaa Pcaal Code is set aside. The appeUaat/accused is acquittcd ofthe chaigc undcr Sect ioa 306 of fhe Indian Penfll Codri. Accused/appcllaat is reported to be oa baU. His baU bonds stend dlschareed. ^ -.... 5d/- PritinkerDiwaker Judge < / lllffl"'