Uttam Singh Rathore vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon''ble Shri M.A. Siddiqui, J.—This criminal revision has been preferred by petitioner Uttam Singh Rathore u/s 397/ 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved by the Order dated 18.01.2012, passed by Ist Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni, in Sessions Trial No. 163/11 by which charges have been framed under Sections 305 and 506 -Part II of IPC against present petitioner and co-accused Ranga Rathore. In short, the facts are that Miss Shail Kumari, a minor girl, aged about 17 years, lodged the report against petitioner and co-accused at PS-Badwara, District-Katni for which offence punishable under Sections 509, 294/ 34 of IPC was registered through Crime No. 102/10 for which police filed charge sheet and case was registered. The case was fixed for evidence and summons were received by Miss Shail Kumari. Petitioner with co-accused Ranga Rathore were giving continuous pressure and intimidated the girl not to give statement and to do the compromise, otherwise her parents would be killed and she will have to face dire consequences. On the day when summons were received from the Court, then again she was threatened, consequently she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance on 20.2.11 at about 23.15 PM at Village-Dhora. Badwara police firstly registered the Marg and during Marg it was found that deceased committed suicide on the instigation of petitioner and the co-accused then police registered Crime No. 87/11 on 20.3.11 against the petitioner and co-accused Ranga for offence punishable under Sections 305 and 506/ 34 IPC. After usual investigation charge sheet was filed and case was committed to the Courts of Sessions and ST No.163/11 was registered. Learned Presiding Officer framed the aforesaid charges against the petitioner as well as co-accused Ranga Rathore against which this revision has been filed by petitioner Uttam Singh Rathore on the ground that no ingredients of Section 107 and 109 of IPC are made out, petitioner never abetted the deceased to commit suicide, no prima facie case u/s 305 IPC is made out, statements of witnesses are contradictory and charges framed by learned trial Judge are not sustainable in the eyes of law, so they be quashed.

I have heard both the sides and perused the documents on record as well as the case diary.

Learned counsel for petitioner placing reliance on decisions in 1995 Supp ( 3) SCC 438 , Mahendra Singh and Another, Gayatribai Vs. State of M.P., Deepak Raghunathrao Shohle @ Shole and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Ram Naresh and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, contended that no ingredients of Section 107 IPC are attracted as petitioner and the co-accused by their act did not instigate the girl to commit suicide and even assuming the fact that they teased the girl, then too it cannot be said that such an act falls under the definition of "instigation", for establishing "instigation" there should be some specific act as "abetment" involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding person to do certain thing, and some positive act by accused is essential to constitute abetment.

Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for State vehemently opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submitted that the deceased who was a minor girl of 17 years'' of age, narrated to her parents that she was being forced not to give the evidence and she was also being teased and her modesty was tried to be outraged and even after registering of crime, petitioner and the co-accused were continuously teasing the deceased and they were creating havoc in the life circle of deceased and deceased who was minor, due to harassment, committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and died, and before her death she narrated the incident that she was constrained to commit suicide due to harassment of petitioner and the co-accused.

Since, deceased was a minor girl of 17 years'' of age and she was subjected to continuous harassment, being minor she thought to end her life in order to get rid from the harassment, so she committed suicide and she acted in that manner since she was a minor and her mind was also immature. She cannot be expected to behave like an adult and a prudent person. Petitioner and the co-accused by their act firstly harassed the deceased by teasing her and tried to outrage her modesty by uttering filthy words and when she was going to depose against the petitioner and his companion, she was threatened and again she was harassed being the minor girl of a village community. She might have committed suicide due to the act of petitioner, so it cannot be said that petitioner''s act was not covered under the term "instigation" u/s 107 of IPC to commit suicide.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has been selected for the services in Indian Army so a lenient view may be taken.

Learned PL appearing for State submitted that no merciful view be taken as prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, so charge u/s 305 and 506 Part II of IPC cannot be quashed as it is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that even in the case of irrespective of the consequence whether it will result into a conviction or acquittal. Looking to the circumstances of the case, the charges framed against petitioner Uttam Singh Rathore by the learned trial Court on 18.1.12 in ST No.163/11 u/s 305 and 506 -Part II of IPC are found to be proper and not against the facts and circumstances of the case. No interference is called for in this revision. The petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.