State of M.P. vs Jagat Singh

Hon''ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta

The appellant/State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 8.5.1998 passed by the Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh in S.T. No.136/97, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. The prosecution''s case in short is that the deceased Ramdevi was a 15 years old girl of one Pyarelal and Munni Bai, who committed suicide on 10.8.1996 by consuming some poisonous substance. An intimation was given to the police and therefore, a Panchnama-lash Ex. P/4 was prepared and her body was sent for the postmortem. Dr. K.R. Sahay (PW-9) with the help of other doctors conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased Ramdevi and gave his report Ex. P/8. He found that she died due to consumption of some poisonous substance. On investigation, the police found that Ramdevi was the student in the school. She was called by the respondent through one boy studying in that school, who went in the class of Ramdevi and told her teacher that brother of the deceased Ramdevi was calling her but, Ramdevi denied that the respondent was not her brother. Thereafter, the teacher called the respondent inside the class and shouted upon him. When Ramdevi was going back to her house, the appellant snatched her school bag with the pretext that why she told to her teacher that the respondent was not related to her. Next day, she could not go to the school because she did not have her school bag. She thought that if she informs the entire story to her parents then, it is possible that the engagement of her elder sister would not take place, whereas some persons were visiting to her house to see her elder sister on that day and therefore, she committed suicide. After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the C.J.M. Tikamgarh, who committed the case to the Sessions Judge.

The respondent abjured his guilt. He did not take any specific plea in the matter and no defence evidence was adduced.

After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State has submitted that the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC was duly established and the deceased died due to the overt act of the respondent that he snatched school bag of the deceased and therefore, the respondent may be acquitted and sentenced accordingly.

Since the respondent was unrepresented and he was not appearing before the Court since long, therefore, Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Advocate from the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee was appointed to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent and to assist the Court. Shri Tamrakar, has submitted that the overt act of the respondent does not fall within the purview of Section 107 of IPC and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charge of the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC.

After considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be considered that whether the appeal filed by the State can be accepted and if yes, then what would be the sentence against the respondent?

It is apparent from the evidence adduced by the prosecution that the deceased Ramdevi had committed suicide. The learned Sessions Judge, Tikamgarh acquitted the respondent because his overt act was not covered u/s 107 of IPC. It is also apparent that there was no relation between the deceased and the respondent so that the presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply. The overt act of the respondent, which was established before the trial Court that the respondent called the deceased from her class and therefore, the teacher called the respondent and scolded him, thereafter the respondent snatched the school bag of the deceased. The deceased thought that neither she got her school bag from the respondent nor she could tell such a story to her parents. It appears that the deceased was also in love with the respondent and therefore, she thought that if such story is exposed then, it would affect adversely to the engagement and the marriage of her elder sister. However, it was the sentimental step of the deceased so that she committed suicide due to snatching of a school bag by the respondent, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent abetted her to commit suicide. The overt act of the respondent proved before the trial Court does not fall within the purview of Section 107 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge has considered this aspect in detail in para 11 of his judgment. The discussion done by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be correct.

Under such circumstances, where the learned Sessions Judge has quoted so many judgments decided by the various High Courts and the High Court of M.P. in support of his discussion made in para 11 of his judgment, it is apparent that the overt act which was proved against the respondent, could not fall under any part of the provisions of Section 107 of IPC, therefore, the respondent cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 306 of IPC. Under such circumstances, the acquittal directed by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be correct. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the findings observed by the trial Court and therefore, the State appeal filed against the impugned judgment cannot be accepted. Consequently, the State appeal is hereby dismissed by maintaining the findings of the trial Court.

Presence of the respondent is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.