JT--J 'T'T.TT7'* ''-TT^T-f r^^^T TOT1 ^l='Ct TT TT^T^'A T*T TOTT* iT^T^m A 'TvnTQ/^ A TTTT AT BILASPUR CREMINAL RJ5VISION N0. / 2006 ^>r.%KS_-sli Gupts.^ 30 ye&r-s^ R/n Prftm N'RT'Fivar* (-^iir^tR T?/n NavH'mTirinfl Parfl An^oecllrQr' WsTci^ -Jr3_^Q,%lpuT Di.st: BastaT-rC.G-1 |\tr\n AT^T^!?rl^Tlt Stutc ot CJ'il'iatusRgrl'i. Ttiroueh P.S.t{oct",ghat japdalDiir yist: Bastar-(C.U.j CRiMINAL REv/ISION U./S 397 RE^AD WITH SECTION 401 OF' tps' ^M? r'T?T1k.^?MAT PPQr*?7lr^TTT?TTt •\^s-jils \^i' t^/jL'^s.l-.-i-i.-t^r'LL; ii.\J^J"'^^t^.ij'US:^i^, ^^ XI-HC-22 •ssi •^w\v\^, ri'dl'y'iii. isi<'"*1'i,( (^r-f\oj^ Wfl yhwaa "WI. '200 fa'b^a' SII^T'^iT R;-li=b SV^I sb^'Ri'yf^t an^iTOiiwgft? '^:ii^<'l4)Tl ^iH<nt "^ f^'<i '(i^'^R i; aiPgq SII^T 28-03-2006 Shri Profull Bhonrt learhed cou( Shri U.K-S.Chondel, leorned Pan| Learned counsel for the ap M.Cr.P.No.616/2006 for gront of dismissed os not pressed. Leacned counsel for the applii matter be finallyheardand disposed Prayer is not opposed. Th'is revision is heard finally at Brief facts are thot one Soiye' fiupta of village Donapal, Oistt; applicant herein on 18.6.1993. The ap| isel for the applicant. il Lawyer for the State. •licant does not press on stny wliich is accordingly ont further proys that this nt the stage of admission. of the wedlock with Songeeto. I fhe stcge ofadmission. ita, daughter of bevi Prdsad Donlt-ewado was morried to the Kicant had three children out is alleged that Sangeeta committed suicide on 18.2.2003 by toilet. Merg intimotion was lod9ed b' Bodhghat. Post-mortem examination body of Sangeeta on 19.2.2003 by a that death of Sangeeta was due to ante-mortem in nature. Devi Praso deceased-Sangeeta fited a written stating thot soon after her marrtige, ihanqing herself inside the (3 ' the applicant herein at P.S. Iwas conducted on the dead ffeom of doctors who opined h^ingir^ and the injuries were ©upta,the father of the ^omplaint at P.S. Bodhghat iangeeta was beirg horassed [TTgr^ngA T XI-HC-22 •s'ni'^ipnOT, 'eSTil'y'iri, r««')i*f'i< iira?ff^Hra» •^ (c(<i<tT' sn^i^ii fc-li?b 3D§^I sf^qict) ^i?fl sn^i^RiiWHfet ^I^^'41'I ^Tffl^* ^ f^lri.l <P31^.K .^TaifSatisn^r and beaten by the applicant, onijccountof demand for dowry. It was also learnt that the applican^ hod kept a mistress in Jagdalpur which was also a couse for repe^tedly beutin9 his wife Sangeeta. It also finds mention in the rep(»rt' lod9ed by Oevi Prascd Supta that a letter hod been sent by $<mgeeto in which she had stated that she was beaten to such an e^tent thot die felt that some day she would be killed. The «>mpairi&; further depicts that .the harassment on occount of demarKf for dowry os also the assault by the applicant herein on Songeeta applicant herein was such agree^ly person that despite being paid the required sum of dowry of R; fcontinued. It also shows that the .5,000/- by his father-in-law, he after sometime persisted with t((e harassment and beating of the wife on account of further den^ind fordowry. It also mentions that a fortnight before the inci^lent, Sangeeta had informed her mother over the tetephone that ^he •»as;severetybeoten up by the applicant that herchances ofsur^ assailed the order doted 23.2.20fl A> ival were meager. Shri Profull Bharat, leorn^d counsel for the applicomt hos 16 passed by the leamed Sessions Jud9e, Bastar at Jagdalpur in S^ssions Trial No.49/2006 onty so far as it relotes to the fr-aming Q-I) charge under Section 306 of IPC ogainst the applicant. So far as the chdrge under Section 498-A [•^tf'g'^ XI-HC-22 'ysi ^ii^id*), d'dl'y'iio, I'K-ii'My wvivff vfiffefi •fe^ST' sn^r^n f<;-ii.'ti sn^T ?fi^ ^fia •CT^T'FRITWtrfta <^l^d4ll ^IH^ff'^ f^l<?)-<.RiR$R iTaiPtHsn^r IPC is concerned, learned counsel this revision on thatcount. The only point which thus revision is «»hetherthere were charge under Sectjon 306 IPC in S< Sessions Jud9e, Bostor. Leamed counsel for the <tpff\ the entire materjQl produced by face value, it would not disclose th^ prima facie\yf the applicomt undei contended that the mere fact o| which \s prima ^iK'/e revealed by t^e Cr.P.C. would not constitute abetm^nt of IPC. On these grounds, he pnfji far as it relotes to framing of ch^irg against the appellant shouM be se^ U.K.S.Chandel, learned Panel Lawyj support of the ifflpugned order. It is settled law that in commissionof an offence, the ^s1 ^or the applicant did not press requires considerdtion in this st|fficient grounds for framing a ^ssions Trial No.49/2006 by the t^ticant hasargued that even if |'he prosecution is taken at its commission of an offence even Section306 IPC. He further- of hflirassment by the applicant documents under Section 173 as defined under Section 107 redi that the impugned order/so d^arge under Section 306 of IPC aside. Onthe other hand, Shri sr for the State has argued in material produced by the prosecu' C^UL.j.^i^ would reveal the conlmission of an o(|der to frame a charge for the ^stablished test is that if the (ion is taken at its foce value, it [offence altogod by the occused. [•'Ni^fi^ XI-HC-22 T^ -i|l'4l<ri'4, y'<j1'Mll<i, r°icii'y'j,< 3TTct?T T^-q? HI<ICtT Chirai '^ 200 (ci'b^at' SII^T^I r<-)i«fisn^r sti*ii'=b •yf^t ^i^icn^i •'-[rHtrrf "^ 'ft1^ <^i-^.i^. ^; aipdq SII^I It is also settled law that in order Section 107 IPC/ the instigcrt-ion proximate ond co-related with the o^ such an extent that it must be said abetted the commission of suicide hy Testing the material producei legally establidied fouchstone as written complaint lodged by Devi manner in which Sangeeto was account of demand for dowry to occcsions, she felt that her life wos factual matrix unfokled by the Prasad 6upta, it appears that afte| repeated assaults at the hands of marriage in the year 1993, Sdnge alternative, but to put an end to her the tvritten complaint ond the are considered and the moteriat ? introspection, it cannot be ruled record to show {uinm facie that th^ by Sangeeta had o direct nexus with] assaults by the opplfcant hereih, on stoterrients Bs odt l-o constitute abetment under ^ffered must be so direct, tt of commission of suicide to |that the applicont herein had |San9eetoc {1 by the prosecution on the above, I find thot the 6upta depicts c horrifying harassed and beaten on an extent that- on sever'cl endangered. Considering 1+is complaint lod9ed by Oevi under^oing harassment and the applicont eversince her feta was left with no other pife byCommitting suicide. If under Section 161 Cr.P.C. minutely looked into w'rth that there is materiol on act of commission of suicide [the harassment and repeated ^ccount of demand for dowry. meilitioned Pro^ad repea^edly sifch writtt'en [^ ^r^^ XI-HC-22 M SlI^rqiT l<-)i* 311^1 sbt)i+ -ylid -3^ ^iraRra, •^atwi?, R«ii<i3,< WICn SbKKt) "W^ 200 Under these circumstances, I am o1 since an offence under Section 306 (gainst the appticont, the impug^ed thereunder calls for no interferencel jurisdiction. In view of what has been statelf in this revision which is ac.cording^ admission. cfil^id;4lT1 ^H<nl ^ 1^T3i' ^:R^.i< i?3lPaH3D^T the considered opinion that IPC is prima facie made out order framing cha"9e in the exercise of revisionol 1 above, there is no substance dismissed at the stage of -—~J^=_ Sd/. D"'P Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge