Citation : 2006 Local Lawc (CG) 368 : II(2007)CCR80 : 2006(18)CriminalCC604
In a decision that underlines the careful threshold the prosecution must cross before criminal charges are framed, the Chhattisgarh High Court on Monday set aside charges under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and discharged three men who had been accused in connection with a 2004 suicide.
Justice Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh heard the criminal revision arising from an order of the 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, which had earlier framed charges against Nikhiram, Balraj Singh and a third accused, Kamleshdas Vaishnav. The court recorded that the accused had been charged more than a year after the death of the deceased, Bhushanlal Verma, who died by hanging on July 29, 2004. The first information report was lodged on the day of the death but, according to the judgment, it did not indicate any reason for the suicide.
The High Court closely examined the prosecution material placed before the trial court. Witness statements obtained during investigation, including those recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, showed only that the accused had allegedly searched for the deceased and confronted him about an allegation that he had damaged a tractor. Those statements, the court said, did not contain anything that could be fairly characterized as instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid the three categories that constitute abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
Relying on settled legal principles, the court applied the prima-facie test applicable at the stage of framing charges: whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, would prima facie establish the accused’s guilt for the offense alleged. The judge found that the evidence fell short. There was no material to show a direct, proximate or immediate causal link between the accused conduct and the deceased’s decision to take his life. On that basis, the court held that the order framing charges under Section 306 could not be sustained.
The judgment also addressed the position of the third co-accused who had not filed the revision petition. Citing precedents, the court extended the benefit of its decision to Kamleshdas Vaishnav as well, allowing that justice required uniform treatment where the accused stood on the same footing.
In its operative directions the High Court set aside the trial court’s order dated February 8, 2006, and discharged Nikhiram, Balraj Singh and Kamleshdas Vaishnav under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lack of sufficient grounds to proceed.
This ruling is a reminder that criminal charges, particularly in cases alleging abetment to suicide under Section 306, require evidence that goes beyond confrontation, argument or complaint. The Court’s judgment reiterates that absent material showing instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid that leads directly to the suicide, an accused cannot be held to face a trial on that specific charge.
Case Details : Criminal Revision No. 107 of 2006, Rikhee Ram Mahilang vs. State of Chhattisgarh (17.02.2006)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. Shivendu Pandya. For Respondents/Defendant: Mr. Ashish Shukla, G.A./Addl. P.P
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 227; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 306; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 107; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 109; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 306; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 34
Cases Referred:
Gurucharan Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 992 : ( 2003 ) 2 SCC 698 : [ 2003 ] 1 SCR 60; Vajrapu Sambayya Naidu and Ors. vs. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 2003 SC 3706 : [ 2003 ]Supp 3 SCR 299 : ( 2004 ) 10 SCC 152
======
अपराध – आरोपों को निरस्त करना – भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (IPC) की धारा 306 सहपठित धारा 34 के तहत दंडनीय अपराध।
न्यायालय ने यह स्पष्ट किया कि धारा 306 आईपीसी (आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाना) के अंतर्गत अपराध सिद्ध करने के लिए अभियोजन पक्ष को यह दिखाना आवश्यक है कि आत्महत्या आरोपी द्वारा दी गई उकसावे का प्रत्यक्ष, तत्काल और निकट कारण थी।
वर्तमान मामले में, यह पाया गया कि अभियुक्तों द्वारा किसी भी प्रकार से मृतक को आत्महत्या के लिए उकसाने का कोई ठोस साक्ष्य या सामग्री नहीं थी। मृतक ने शांतिपूर्वक आत्महत्या की और प्राथमिकी या गवाहों के बयानों में ऐसा कोई संकेत नहीं था जिससे यह साबित हो कि आरोपियों का आचरण आत्महत्या के लिए जिम्मेदार था।
अदालत ने माना कि केवल किसी पर आरोप लगाना या किसी विवाद को लेकर झगड़ा होना, आत्महत्या के लिए उकसावे के बराबर नहीं है। जब तक अभियोजन पक्ष यह साबित न करे कि आरोपी का आचरण आत्महत्या के लिए प्रत्यक्ष कारण था, तब तक उस पर धारा 306 के तहत मुकदमा नहीं चलाया जा सकता।
इस आधार पर, अदालत ने 8 फरवरी 2006 को पारित आदेश को निरस्त करते हुए अभियुक्तों के विरुद्ध धारा 306 आईपीसी के तहत लगाए गए आरोपों को रद्द कर दिया और उन्हें दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 227 के तहत निर्दोष घोषित कर discharge कर दिया।
