1 Crr.3662/17
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Criminal Revision No. 3662/17
Kuldeep Jadon Vs. State of M.P.
Gwalior Dt. 04/5/18
Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.S.Yadav, Public Prosecutor for the State.
1.
Revisional powers of this court u/S.397/401 Cr.P.C. are
invoked for challenging the order of framing of charge dated
2/11/2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha
(M.P.) in Sessions Case No. 300062/16 by which charges for
offences punishable u/Ss. 306, 354-D, 506 IPC and Sec. 11/12 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act have been
framed against the petitioner and two other co-accused namely
Rahul and Shubham.
2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the
question of admission.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basic
ingredients of Sec. 306 IPC against the petitioner is not made out
as the allegations do not spell out the pre-requisites of abetment
to suicide and thus the petitioner has been falsely implicated
merely for being friend of co-accused Shubham and Rahul who are
alleged to be main accused.
3.1 Learned counsel for the State supporting the order of
framing charge submits that there is sufficient evidence to sustain
the impugned charge by bare reading of the allegations contained
in the FIR and the other material collected by the prosecution.
3.2 The bare reading of the allegations especially in the FIR
reveals that the FIR was lodged on 18/10/2016 on the basis of an
inquest founded upon the information received at the police
station on 20/9/2016 regarding death of deceased Diksha Sen,
2 Crr.3662/17
aged around 17 years, due to hanging. It further reveals that the
dead-body was sent for postmortem where cause of death was
opined to be axphasia due to hanging. Statements of Vaishali,
cousin sister of the deceased, Anshu Sen, father of the deceased,
Smt. Usha Sen, mother of the deceased and Nikhil brother of the
deceased were recorded, disclosing that Rahul and Shubham
alongwith the petitioner used to stalk the deceased while she used
to go towards school/coaching class. Piqued by this stalking
deceased on 20/9/2016 committed suicide. The offence punishable
u/Ss. 306, 354-D, 506 IPC and Sec. 11/12 of the POSCO Act was
alleged.
3.3 One of the PWs Vaishali, cousin sister of the deceased in her
statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. disclose that her sister (deceased) used
to tell her that if some untoward incident happens to her or she
dies then she (Vaishali) should inquire from Shobha about the
cause of death. Shobha was said to be friend of the deceased who
disclosed in her statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. separately recorded
that Shobha and deceased in July 2016 used to attend English
Coaching Class. At the coaching class deceased met Rahul Lodhi
(co-accused) who was also a student at the coaching class.
Shobha also disclosed that the deceased used to tell her that co-
accused Rahul was the boyfriend of the deceased. 15-20 days
prior to the incident the deceased stopped attending the coaching
class. Mother of the deceased thereafter visited Shobha’s home to
inquire about the reason as to why deceased did not return home
to which Shobha showed ignorance. Thereafter Shobha disclosed
that the deceased did not appear in quarterly examination which
commenced from 14/9/2016. Shobha further disclosed that on
20/9/2016 she lastly met the deceased and asked her as to why
3 Crr.3662/17
she did not appear in the examination to which the deceased
responded by saying that she was not well.
3.4 However, the disclosures made by Vaishali, cousin sister of
the deceased are much more revealing than that of PW Shobha in
her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. This witness Vaishali had disclosed
that since march 2016 co-accused Rahul was pressurizing the
deceased by stalking her while she used to go to school/coaching
class. Though co-accused Rahul used to insist upon the deceased
to become his friend and used to threatened the deceased to
succumb to the said request. PW Vaishali also stated that this fact
of stalking by co-accused Rahul and exerting pressure on the
deceased to befriend him was known to other co-accused
Shubham and Kuldeep (petitioner herein) since both these co-
accused Shubham and petitioner used to accompany Rahul during
the process of stalking deceased and all the three together were
companions in stalking the deceased.
3.5 The aforesaid allegations reveal that offence of stalking
appears to be prima facie made out but this court is to dwell into
the all important aspect as to whether said allegation can further
be “sufficient” for satisfying the foundational ingredients of
attempt to suicide.
3.6 It is undisputed that the deceased was a girl of
impressionable age of 17 years. At this age, the power to visualize
the consequence of one’s action is not very clear and is ordinarily
blurred by zeal of young and impulsive mind. When the petitioner
alongwith other co-accused was stalking the deceased he was well
aware of her tender age and impressionable mind and therefore
can very well be ascribed with the knowledge that continuous and
persistent stalking could cause havoc upon the mental equilibrium
4 Crr.3662/17
of prosecutrix to the extent of driving her to take any extreme
step. Whether the cause of stalking was sufficient to satisfy the
basic ingredients of abetment as defined in Section 107 IPC is not
for this court to decide at this early stage of prosecution. The
reason is not far to see. The allegations clearly make out a case
where the strong suspicion arises against the petitioner alongwith
his friends who are alleged to have continuously stalked the
deceased for several months. The factum of stalking being prima
facie sufficient or not to drive the deceased to commit suicide can
be judged by the trial at the time of marshalling of evidence and
does not lie within the domain of this court while exercising limited
revisional jurisdiction especially in the absence of jurisdictional
error.
4. As discussed above, the fact and allegation prima facie
establish a case of strong suspicion of stalking leading to abetment
to suicide, leaving no room for interference by this court except to
dismiss the petition.
5. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(Sheel Nagu)
Digitally signed by DHANANJAYA
BUCHAKE Judge
04/5/2018
Date: 2018.05.05 15:40:22 +05’30’
(Bu)
