1 revn.341.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Revision Application No. 341 of 2011 Mrs. Manisha Ashok Parihar ....Applicant v/s. The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent Mr. Vidya Manjrekar Pradhan for the applicant. Mr. D.R. More-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 3rd August, 2011 PC: Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. By way of present revision application, the applicant is challenging the order dated 20th May, 2010 passed by the learned Adhoc Asst. Sessions Judge, Mumbai thereby rejecting the application filed by the present applicant for discharge in Sessions Case No. 64/2011. The applicant is sister-in-law of one Manisha Parihar. The said Manisha Parihar is said to have consumed poison on 10th April, 2010 and due to which she has died on 18th April, 2010. 4. On the basis of the complaint made by the father of the deceased, a FIR came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 498 A, 306 read with 34 of the IPC against the husband of the deceased, the parents-in-law 2 revn.341.11.sxw and the present applicant. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that there is no material against the present applicant so as to establish her complicity with offence committed. The applicant submitted that her parents, the deceased and her sister were residing at Mumbai whereas the applicant was residing at Pali in State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated at the behest of the family members of the deceased. 6. Shri More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the revision application. He submits that there are independent witnesses who are residing nearby the house of the deceased who clearly implicated the present applicant. Learned APP relies on the statement of one Shakuntala alias Nagina and one Gurmeet Kaur in support of the contention that order of the learned Session Judge requires no interference. 7. Even taking the allegations against the present applicant at its face value, it can be seen that there are only general allegations regarding the ill treatment. By now it is a settled position of law that for convicting an accused under Section 498 A specific acts have to be proved. 8. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 306 is concerned, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove such an act which has a direct nexus with the deceased committing suicide. It is pertinent to note that that dying declaration of the deceased was recorded immediately i.e. on 11th April, 2010. In the dying declaration the deceased has stated thus:- ßEkh nhM Ok”kkZaIkkLkqUk vkTkkjh vkgs- nksUgh eqykapk osGsl ek>s fl>fju >kys vlwu rsOgkiklqu eh usgeh vktkjh vlrs- ikBnq[k.ks] iksVkr nq[k.ks rlsp Mksds 3 revn.341.11.sxw nq[k.ks v'kk xks”Vh gksrkr R;keqGs lnj vktkjkckcr ek>h MkWDVjdMs vkS”k/kksipkj pkyq vkgs- dky fn-10-04-2010 jksth jk=h 23-00 oktslqekjkl tso.k djqu eh usgeizek.ks eh vkS”k/k ?ks.;kdjhrk mBys- vkS”k/kP;k ckVyh'kstkjh rlkp jaxkph nqljh ckVyh gksrh rsFkhy vkS”k/k I;k;ys uarj eyk pDdj ;sm ykxyh Eg.kwu vkS”k/k ijr psd dsys R;kosGh lnjps vkS”k/k vkgs >qjGkps vkS”k/k vlY;kps ekgsrh iMys R;keqGs eh ek>s irh ;kaP;k eh fun'kZukl vk.kqu fnys R;kauh eyk rkCkMrksc eksfgr gkWfLiVy ;sFks vk.kys vlrk rsFkhy MkWDVjkus riklwu eyk nk[kydjqu ?ksrys ek>kk vkS”k/kksipkj pkyq vkgs-Þ 9. It can thus be seen that in the dying declaration herself she has stated that for last one and half years she was not keeping well and she has further stated that due to the cesarean section performed on her at the time of both the deliveries, she was consistently ailing and was taking treatment. Insofar as the incident is concerned she states that on 10th April, 2010 when she was taking her medicine, by inadvertence she took medicine from some other bottle and since she was feeling giddy, she checked the bottle and found that she had consumed the medicine used for killing cockroaches. She further stated that on this being brought to the notice of her husband, her husband immediately brought her to the hospital. The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v/s. State of Gujarat & anr. {(2010) 8 SCC 628} has observed thus:- “12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.” 10. From the perusal of the entire chargesheet, no material could be seen 4 revn.341.11.sxw which could be said that same was sufficient to bring home the prosecution case that the present accused intended to get or is to get or abate the deceased to commit suicide. 11. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for proceeding further for the offence punishable under Section 306. 12. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). (B.R. GAVAI, J)