AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The applicant/accused is aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah District Morena in Sessions Trial No. 2955/2016, whereby the trial Court has framed charges against the applicant for commission of offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 306 of IPC.
The brief facts of the present case are that on 12.06.2016 complainant Rambharosi had informed police station Sihoniya, district Morena with regard to death of deceased Pooja Bhadoriya, on which merg No. 10/2016 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. has been registered. During the merg inquiry, it was found that the present applicant-Gauri Shankar and co-accused Pintu @ Rakesh Sharma allured the deceased Pooja by promising her that the applicant will marry her. However, at that time the deceased was only sixteen years of age. When family members of the deceased Pooja were making efforts to locate her, the applicant left her at the scheduled place due to fear of getting caught. It is further alleged that the deceased being apprehensive of humiliation which she may have to face at the hands of her family members decided to end her life. In order to do so she hanged on to the tree by using her scarf.
In the merg inquiry, it came out that the applicant is responsible for the events which abeted the deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, an FIR was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
The police eventually filed charge-sheet and the trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.11.2016 framed charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The order of framing charges against the applicant is subject matter of challenge before this Court in the instant proceeding.
The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the charge-sheet even considered in its entirety does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence charged against the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no ocular evidence available on record to even remotely implicate him. Thus, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law.
On the other hand, the learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that the matter is based on circumstantial evidence which directly connect the applicant with the alleged crime. Therefore, no interference is warranted.
I have considered the facts of the case and the rival contentions of the parties.
The perusal of the documents filed with the charge-sheet and the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly reflects that the deceased was below the age of 16 years at the time of incident and the evidence on record is enough to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 363, 366 of IPC as the allegation of allurement to marry with the deceased has clearly come out against the applicant.
Although, the said facts failed to satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC because the reason to commit suicide and abetment to commit suicide cannot be equated and for the purpose of Section 306 of IPC it can be used simultaneously or interchangeably. The fact that the deceased committed suicide under apprehension of humiliation or loss of reputation in the eyes of people is not enough to prosecute a person for offence under Section 306 of IPC unless the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC is to be satisfied which are reproduced as under:- "107. Abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing, who (First) Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." Thus the facts of the case by no stretch of imagination tantamount to abetment under Section 107 of IPC.
Taking this view of matter, the instant revision petition is partly allowed and the applicant is discharged from commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC. However, the trial shall continue for remaining offences without being influenced by the observation made in this order.
With the aforesaid modification in the order dated 03.11.2016, the revision petition stands disposed of.