i* 1 rs-fi ^ R£ lyjs B'e'.'i INTHEHIGH COURT OF JUDICATVRE CHHATTISGARH AT \ BILASPUR CRIMINAL RBVISION NQ.-^y^' / 2006 APPUCANTS ,fe\^,c^-' NON-APPLICANT : NANDU RAM BANDHE, S/o Shri Darban Bandhe, aged about 56 yrs, Pativari Smt. PUNNIBAI BANDHE, W/o Shri Nandu Ram Bandhe, aged about 50 yrs Smt. RAJKUMARI BANJARE, W/o Shri Om Prakash Banjare, aged about 22 yrs All Resident of:- Gram- Bhofhli, Post- Farfoud, P.S.- Arang, Distt.- RaipurfC.G.). State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, Arang, Distt Raipur (C.G.) CRJM!NAL REVISION U/S 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCBDURE.-— XI-HC-22 ^'- -s^ "i||''<l<"f4. »Ti1'M*is.T°«ni'yli< t||t|Mla)*<iq> 3TT^T xra^ _.£^..^b. f« €• "V^200^ Iq^ST' 1|!11: sn^r^T h-ush sn^r ?hHi<h ^l^fl 3ir^i ^giwgfin 10-05-2006 coilinse todfiy Shri Manish Sharma, learned Shri Ravindra Agr'owal, P.L. for <? . ' Learned counsel foh the appli(jants press the opplication Aft.(Cr.)P. No. accordingly dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for the applica^ts be heard finaliy and disposedof today Notopposed. The revision is'finclly heard It is directed a9ainst an or< Shri R. 5. Sharmo, iearned Session^ Number-128/2(X)6 whereby charge uni agcsinst the applicants. Brief facts are that the appliccjnt the dau9hter of applicants N6.1 & 2. It is alle9-ed +hat oh 14-07-2005 Rcy On 17-07-2005, the deceased went t4 back.It appear-s that the appliccnts them and did not send Rqj Kumari 4 deceased went to Police Station-1 18-07-2005 that the applicants No.l to her maternal home ondlwere not sefr prcys that this reyision should ^it the stage of admission. ^i'4[lcri4hT TnTi^ff ^ fe^ •if^-^.i^ . '^'3if:<n aii^i for the appiicants. he State. submitted thct he does not 1026/2006 for Stcy which is er dated 08-04-2006 passed by Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial ler Section-306 of IPC was framed No.3 Smt. Rcy Kumari Banjare is She was married to the deceased. lumari came to her maternal home. Villa9e- Bhothali to bring hls wife wonted the deceased to live with ith the deceased. Upon this, the irang and lodged a report on 4-ft^t^L [2 were frequently takefthis wife ding her back on his r-equest, whiclr T XI-HC-22 3<? "iiHici'y, -eiTil+i'is, Riwi'ya'1- • an^T xra^ NI*<WTSh*frai "^ 200 ^K^i' SII^iqiT h'v'h sn^r Sh*liq> VfSV sn^i^gwofei — -~z-—- Ijias reached him in a stage.of mental depi ^syi.e. 18-07-2005(ifter lodgin9 thesai< jiouse snd eornmitted suicide by consumii ^aying that hewas conimitting.jiuicide, \o the atti+ude of the applicants. 19-07-2005. It revesled that death o-1 'espiratory faiiure as a resultof consum] Learned counss! for the applicant| hnaterial placed by the prosecution wa^ ^ouid not even prima facie show the exi 806 of IPG against the applicants. Onj impugned order be set aiide. Shri Ravindra Agpowa[, tearned whiis opposing the prayer did not point Imateria! on record to indicate abetmenll which r-esulted in suicide by Om Prakash.; Heiving con$idered rivol submissiot )rder dated 08-04-2006 and atso the ,framed against the appiicants. Secjt iabetment cs folbws: of a thin9, who-—• First:— Instigates any per^ tlllfoqll 1|t|11'iti ^S <fa|*ZK i? 3rf:<n 3f^i jession. It appears,on the same report, Om Prokash went to his fj poison. He left a suicidal note >eing completely frustrated due lost mortem was conducted on Om Prakash was due to Cardio |tion of poison. orgued that even if the entire accepted at its face vatue, it itence of a case underSection- I'his ground, he prayed thot the ounsel oppearil^ for the State out the existence of any other or instigation by the applicants is, I have perused the impugned <^iar-9s ""der Section-306 ofTPC ion 107 of the I.P.C. defines person abets the doing on to do that thing; or^ [^^ if^ XI-HC-22 SII^I^ fc-ii'ti an$?I sft+ii^ •afi^f 1 TST ^IPTRPI, 'STlte'IS. fiK'll'My ^WVWW^K '^n, 200 Secondly.—- Engages with on persons in any corispir'acy for an act or illegol omission take^ conspiracy, and in order to the or more other person or ^he doin9 of that thing, if place in pursuance of that doingof that thing; or Thirdly.— Inte(itionjii)ly aiefs. by any act or iilegal OfflissiOn, the doing of that thii ExpSanaihn 1.— A peilson misrepresentdtion, or by i^il material fact which he is boijnd causes or procures, or attemj thin9 to be done, is said to ii( thing. Expianation2.— • Whoever time of the commission of an to facilitate the commission focilitate the commission ther of that csct. . ^T'qicf^'1 ^l+idT ^ ^1Lril ^^l< ^3lf:<PT3n^T who, by iwillful iliful concealment of a to disclose, voluntarily its to cause or procure. a stigate the doingof that either prior to or at the jict, does anything in order |of that act. and thereby sof, is sdd toaid tHe doin9 It is settled law thdt in ord< Section-306 of I.P.C. the prosecutij?n suicide committed.by the deceased wc^ the ahetment or instigation offered; settled thut the test for franiingcha^e by the prosecution is accepted at itsj essential ingredientsof an offence ujider ilicants. InlhzcoseofRakesh C'.&.L.J. 324 it was Held that in ord tr to estoblish the offence under is required to prove that the the direct and proximate cause of by the applicants. It is also well is that if the material produced face vatue. it wfould constitute the Section 306 I.P.C. a9ainst the fgidinw v. State of MP. 2004 (1) r to frcnne a char9e under Section 3& XI-HC-22 SD^I^T R-li.<* 311^1 st)*iich 4ififl ;^;il ^Scr'-qraRTq.'SxfrffTS, faclltiy HI*1CTI Chliqi "^ 200 sn^i^gwgftct 4- 306 I.P.C. by the prosecution it must was so direct, co-ralated, immedial suicide that it can be scifely infert "y" suicide oniy on occount such instigatioi Applyihg the above principle prosecution jn the presentcase, I fin(d materia! to show that tha applicahts the commission of suicide by Om Pr< drsw an inference that the appiicof suicide. No wife or Par-ent-in-law vi eomrnit suicide. It appears thaj frustrated due to the attitude ofth^ his uiife toher matrin'onial home adopf ending his life aftec consuming poisc|n. absoluteiy no material on record to primafacie under Section 306 I.P.C. The' le&rned Sessions Judge r( mind tb the mcfter'ial produced by| framed charge under Section 306 I.P Sessions Judge, he was expected principles for frQming charge, well sef1 Apex Court as also by this Court. T^ illegal and is liable to be set aside ine^< flie shown that the instigation, if any, 4 and proximate with the act of ted that the deceased committed CM^[(rl*n'i 'RFT^f ^ 'fe11^ •(.Fsf^K ^T3lPgil3I]^[ to the material placed by the that there is noteven an iota of iji ony manner abetted or insti9ated tkash. There is atso no material to ilts wanted Om Prakash to commit lould ever desire the son-in-lcw to the deceased being completeiy applicants No.l & 2 in not sending (ted an escapist view towards life by It is thus clear that there is ihow the existence of a case even |igainst the applicants. • kgrettably didnotcare to appty its the prosecution and mechatiically ;.agamst the applicants. Beingthe l-o know atleast the basic guiding |tted by a cateriaof decisionsof the le impugned or-der is thus ex facie iercise of revisional jurisdiction. | ~' 1: XI-HC-22 .sii^i^r Ri-fjcb 3Tlt?T ?h^iicn ^ificT T 75T •*IWId'4, s>Tfl'LIII<i. fadl'My 3Tr^?T XR^? tfPR'tT shHlcb 311^1 ^RIRiT'Hf^ -s In the result, this revision \: 08-04-2006 framing charge unde gppiicants is set aside. The'aj CMA([<n^lTl TTFRTf ^ f^T3t •(f^T'FSH iT3if;<ngn^r ^ allowed. The impugned order dated ~ Section-306 of IPC against the are discharged.