Shankar Bhilala vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri. A.K.Sharma J.

Appellant has filed this appeal against judgment dt. 14.5.1998 passed in S.T. No. 114/1997 by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Khargone District Mandleshwar, (West Nimar) M.P. whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and to pay fine Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation. The brief facts of the case are that, on 8.3.1997 Mahesh died after consuming sulfas tablet. On merg enquiry, it has been found that accused Nandadia, Shankar and Moolchand who were ''Bataidars'' of deceased, pressurised and threatened him to give more share of crop to them due to which he consumed sulfas. Police after registration of FIR filed challan against the three persons in the Trial Court and learned Trial Court after trial of all the accused for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC convicted the appellant Shankar for the charge framed against him and sentenced him as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Other accused Nandadia and Moolchand have been acquitted.

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting him while acquitting the other accused persons on the basis of same evidence and further there is no evidence of abatement against him.

The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether, the learned Trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant by impugned judgment.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the statement of Prakash PW-1, Puna PW-2, Ramesh PW-3, Rakesh PW-4 Ashok PW-6 and wife of deceased Jyotibai PW-7 who have stated that accused were threatening the deceased for giving more share from the crop. On the day when he committed suicide in the morning, appellant Shankar another co-accused again demanded more share from the crop, thereafter in the day Mahesh consumed sulfas. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the statement of deceased recorded by Dr. K.K. Unia PW-11 in which he has narrated that he had a quarrel with partner and he has threatened him with death, therefore, he has consumed sulfas. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that if the evidence of prosecution witnesses is relied, the dispute regarding demand of more share from the crop was continuing from 15 days before the victim committed suicide and the demand of more share from the crop cannot be equated with abatement for suicide. Even on the day of incidence if the evidence of witnesses is relied, after so called demand of more share from the crop, victim has gone to other Village and thereafter he has consumed sulfas.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards the statement of Mansharam PW-5 to whom deceased met on the way after consuming sulfas and requested him to save him as he was fearing imputation of allegation on him. The deceased Mansharam PW-5 rebuts the story of abatement for suicide against the appellant. Further learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellant on same set of evidence against the other accused who have been acquitted as demand of more share from crop was made by all the three partners continuously for 15 days.

Therefore, in the absence of any reliable evidence regarding abatement of suicide considering the evidence of Mansharam PW-5, learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. Therefore, appeal is allowed setting-aside the impugned judgment. Appellant is acquitted from the charges of the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. The bail bond of the appellant shall remain discharged.