SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ritu Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2019

Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(1)

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
(SB: Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava)

Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018.

Ritu Choubey.
Versus
State of M.P. another.

Shri Alok Vagrecha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Arpit Tiwari, Learned Government Advocate for the State.
Ms. Indu Pande, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

Whether approved for reporting:

Law laid down:

Significant paragraphs:

-O R D E R-

(26/06/2019)

Petitioner-accused has filed this criminal revision under Section

397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set-aside

the impugned order dated 02/07/2018 passed by Second Additional

Session Judge Sagar in S.T. No. 67/2018 whereby learned Second

Additional Session Judge, Sagar framed charges for the offence

punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are that the marriage of

petitioner-accused was solemnized on 18/04/2012 with the deceased

Rajneesh Choubey. Deceased Rajneesh Choubey ended his live on

27/03/2013 by hanging himself in his house. Thereafter brother of

deceased Rajneesh Choubey filed a complaint against the petitioner-

Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(2)

accused and others. It is mentioned in that complaint that marriage of

deceased Rajneesh Choubey was solemnized with petitioner-accused

on 18/04/2012 thereafter, petitioner-accused lived at matrimonial

house with deceased Rajneesh Choubey and other family members.

Petitioner-accused humiliated and tortured deceased Rajneesh

Choubey and petitioner-accused told deceased Rajneesh Choubey that

her marriage solemnized with him without her wish. She did not like

deceased Rajneesh Choubey. Petitioner-accused did not do domestic

work. She did not provide food to the deceased Rajneesh Choubey.

She also alleged character trait. Thereafter she went to her parental

house with her ornament. Deceased Rajneesh Choubey went to her

parental house to take her back but petitioner-accused refused and

abused deceased Rajneesh Choubey. She told that she wants divorce

otherwise deceased Rajneesh Choubey and his family members shall

be falsely implicated in the case and she want marriage with another

person due to this thing, deceased was in depression, thereafter,

deceased filed divorce petition on 23/03/2013 before Civil Judge

Senior Division, Lalitpur (U.P.) and deceased Rajneesh Choubey was

in depression. At that time he telephoned to the petitioner-accused, the

petitioner-accused told him to go and die. Thereafter, deceased

Rajneesh Choubey came to his house and committed suicide by

hanging himself. Learned trial Judge inquired the matter and held

there is praima facie material against the petitioner accused, so he

took cognizance against the petitioner-accused under Section 306 of

IPC thereafter, learned trial judge framed charges against the
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(3)

petitioner-accused under Section 306 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused submits that after

marriage petitioner-accused was compelled to live in her matrimonial

home, then facts have been narrated in the complaint are nothing but a

bundle of falsehood but the court below has erred in law and also on

facts and acted with a material irregularity while framing charges

under Section 306 of IPC. The impugned order is perverse and based

on no evidence. Petitioner-accused cannot be held liable for any

irresponsible steps taken by the deceased. Petitioner-accused resided

at her marital home and was being forced to leave her husband due to

the latter’s disturbing and dangerous behaviour. He further submits

that complaint itself shows that the same has been drafted by a skilled

person who has expertise in filling such concocted cases and in a very

cunning manner made an attempt to abuse the provisions of law.

Averments in the complaint do not disclose the ingredients of Section

107 of IPC. The Trial Court ignored that the deceased was under

psychiatric treatment and was suffering from depression due to the

divorce proceedings with the petitioner-accused. The deceased

committed an Anomic and Egoistic suicide due to the failure of self

and inability to cope up with the rejection. The trial court has ignored

that the family members of the deceased are unnecessarily blaming

the petitioner-accused for the death of their family member.

Petitioner-accused has no role to play in the death of the deceased. It

is evident from the record that the deceased filed divorce petition

against petitioner-accused, so it cannot be said that the petitioner-

Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(4)

accused wanted to take divorce from deceased Rajneesh Choubey

but the deceased was a patient of depression and had other serious

behavioural issues which limited him to lead a normal life. On various

occasions he abused and assaulted the petitioner-accused. She was

threatened with dire consequences, following which she was

compelled to flee to her maternal home without even her basic

belongings. The deceased was habitual drinker and had absolutely no

friend circle which further worsened his psychological state. When the

petitioner-accused reasoned with him and her in-laws, she was

snubbed and was asked to adjust with deceased Rajneesh Choubey, so

it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State opposed the

averments made by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and

supported the impugned order.

5. Heard both the parties and perused the record.

6. It is evident from the record that learned trial judge framed the

charges against the petitioner-accused under Section 306 of IPC, so it

must be seen that what is the evidence against the petitioner-accused.

Section 227 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:

227. Discharge. If, upon consideration of the record of the
case and the documents submitted therewith, and after
hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution
in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.

Section 228 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as

under:

228. Framing of charge.(1) If, after such consideration
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(5)

and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there
is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he
may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order,
transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the
offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of
warrant- cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in
writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of
sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to
the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he
pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam

Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and others

AIR 1990 SC 1962 has held as under:-

7. Again in SectionSupdt. Remembrancer of Legal Affairs,
West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja Ors., [1979] 4 SCC
274 this Court observed in paragraph 18 of the Judgment as
under: “The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to
be applied finally before finding, the accused guilty or other-
wise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227
or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At this
stage, even a very strong suspicion rounded upon materials
before the Magistrate which leads him to form a
presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual
ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the
framing of charge against the accused in respect of the
commission of that offence”.

From the above discussion it seems well-settled that at
the Sections 227-228 stage the Court is required to evaluate
the material and documents on record with a view to finding
out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face-value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. The Court may for this limited purpose sift
the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial
stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth
even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court again in the case of Union of India Vs.
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(6)

Prafulla Kumar Samal and another AIR 1979 SC 366 has held as

under:-

Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above,
the following principles emerge:

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of
framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the
limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out:

(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose
grave suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in
framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.

(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay
down a rule of universal application. By and large however
if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied
that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to
some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused,
he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.

(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of
the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a
senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post
office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to
consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect
of the evidence and the documents produced before the
Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so
on. This however does not mean that the Judge should
make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter
and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

It is evident from the above case law that there must be prima-

facie material available, on which charge can be framed.

7. It is evident from the record that petitioner-accused is wife of

deceased Rajneesh Choubey. After marriage petitioner-accused lived

sometimes with deceased Rajneesh Choubey and his family members.

About three months from the date of the incident petitioner-accused

was living in her parental home. It is admitted that there is dispute
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(7)

between the petitioner-accused and her husband deceased Rajneesh

Choubey and deceased Rajneesh Choubey filed a divorce petition

three days before the incident. Allegation against the petitioner-

accused is that she tortured and humiliated the deceased Rajneesh

Choubey. She left his house without any reasonable cause. She told

deceased Rajneesh Choubey to go and die. So deceased Rajneesh

Choubey ended his life by hanging due to behaivour of his wife.

Petitioner-accused accused submits that deceased Rajneesh Choubey

was in depression condition, so he committed suicide. The Hon’ble

Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case of SectionM.Mohan vs.

State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police

reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626.

“36. We would like to deal with the concept of ‘abetment’.
Section 306 of the Code deals with ‘abetment of suicide’
which reads as under:

“306. Abetment of suicide – If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extent to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.”

37. The word ‘suicide’ in itself is nowhere defined inSection
the Indian Penal Code, however, its meaning and
import is well known and requires no explanation.
`Sui’ means `self’ and `cide’ means `killing’, thus
implying an act of self-killing. In short a person
committing suicide must commit it by himself,
irrespective of the means employed by him in
achieving his object of killing himself.

38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an
offence considering that the successful offender is
beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an
offence under Sectionsection 309 of I.P.C.

39. Abetment of a thing’ has been defined under
section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(8)

reproduce section 107, which reads as under:

“107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a
thing, who –

First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing,
if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance
of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that
thing; or Thirdly – Intentionally aides, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section
107 reads as under:

“Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time
of the commission of an act, does anything in order to
facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing
of that act.”

40. The Learned counsel also placed reliance on yet
another judgment of this court in SectionRamesh Kumar v. State
of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, in which a three-
Judge Bench of this court had an
occasion to deal with the case of a similar nature. In a
dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant
husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish
and go wherever you like”. Thereafter, the wife of the
appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide.

41.This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar (2001)
9 SCC 618: 2002 SCC(Cri) 1088 has examined different
shades of the meaning of “instigation’.

Para 20 reads as under:(SCC p. 629) “20. Instigation is
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do
“an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though
it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that
effect. or what constitutes instigation must necessarily
and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a
reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case
where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct created such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other option except to
commit suicide in which case an instigation may have
been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(9)

follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

In the said case this court came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence and material available on record
wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having
abetted commission of suicide by Seema (appellant’s wife
therein) may necessarily be drawn.

42. SectionIn State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) SCC
(Cri) 107, this Court has cautioned that (SCC p. 90, para

17), the Court should be extremely careful in assessing
the facts and circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding
whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact
induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide
was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and
difference in domestic life, quite common to the society,
to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord
and difference were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

43. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt.
of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (16) SCC 605: (2010)3 SCC (Cri)
367, had an occasion to deal with this aspect of
abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of
the word “instigation” and “goading”. The court opined
that there should be intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s
suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each
person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket
formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be
decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.

44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained.

45. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the
cases decided by this court are clear that in order to
convict a person under Sectionsection 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit
suicide seeing no option and this act must have been
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(10)

intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide.”

8. The Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case of

of Sanju Vs. State of M.P. Reported in (2002) 5 Supreme Court

Cases 371 also is as under:

“8. SectionIn Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. Anr . , 1995
Supp. (3) SCC 438: 1995 SCC (Cri) 943, the appellant was
charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the
ground that the appellant during the quarrel is said to have
remarked the deceased ‘to go and die’ . This Court was of the
view that mere words uttered by the accused to the deceased
‘to go and die’ were not even prima facie enough to instigate
the deceased to commit suicide.

9. SectionIn Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P ., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC
731: 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157, the appellant was charged for an
offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the
dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:
(SCC p. 731, para 1) “My mother-in-law and husband and
sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me.
They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants
to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my
sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I
want to die by burning.”

10. This Court, considering the definition of ‘abetment’ under
Section 107 I.P.C., found that the charge and conviction of
the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not
sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the
deceased. This Court further held that neither of the
ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the
deceased.

11. SectionIn Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the
conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the
basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive
Magistrate , in which she had stated that previously there had
been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on
the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband
who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go
and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and
had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: (SCC p.

620)

“A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(11)

intending the consequences to actually follow cannot
be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court
that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to
ordinary petulance, discord and differences in
domestic life quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance, discord and
differences were not expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the court should not be
satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged
for abetting the offence of suicide should be found
guilty.”

9. The Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case of

of S.S. Chhena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another reported

in (1995) M.P.L.J. 458 held as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate
or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing
no option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences
which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of
each individual differs from the other. Different people
behave differently in the same situation.

27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the
facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the
conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be
legally sustained without any credible evidence or material
on record against the appellant. The order of framing a
charge under Sectionsection 306 IPC against the appellant is
palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty
of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial
without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the
order of framing charge under Sectionsection 306 IPC against the
appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against
him are also set aside.”

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the similar issue in the case
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(12)

of of S.S. Chhena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another

reported in (1995) M.P.L.J. 458 held as under:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate
or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases
decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens
rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or
direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and that act must have been intended to push the
deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences
which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of
each individual differs from the other. Different people
behave differently in the same situation.

27. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the
facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the
conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally
sustained without any credible evidence or material on
record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge
under Sectionsection 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably
erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice
to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any
credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of
framing charge under Sectionsection 306 IPC against the appellant
is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also
set aside.”

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. State of

Harayana delivered in criminal appeal no. 93/2019 on 18 th January,

2019 has held as under:-

“9. The term instigation under Section 107 IPC has been
explained in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi2) as follows:

“16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench in Ramesh
Kumar case [(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088],
R.C.

Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(13)

goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do (2010) 1
SCC 707 (2009) 16 SCC 605: (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367 “an
act”. To satisfy the requirement of “instigation”, though it is not
necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitutes “instigation” must necessarily and specifically be
suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to
incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a
continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit
suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred.
A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be
instigation.

17. Thus, to constitute “instigation”, a person who instigates
another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of
an act by the other by “goading” or “urging forward”. The
dictionary meaning of the word “goad” is “a thing that
stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction”
(see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); “to keep irritating or
annoying somebody until he reacts” (see Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary, 7th Edn.).”

10. Words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any
intention cannot be termed as instigation. (See Praveen Pradhan
v. State of Uttaranchal 3).

11. We are of the opinion that the evidence on record does not
warrant conviction of the Appellant under Section 306 IPC.
There is no proximity between the Panchayat held in
September, 2001 and the suicide committed by Arvind on
23.02.2002. The incident of slapping by the Appellant in
September, 2001 cannot be the sole ground to hold him
responsible for instigating the deceased to commit (2012) 9
SCC 734 suicide. As the allegations against all the three
accused are similar, the High Court ought not to have convicted
the Appellant after acquitting the other two accused.

12. We are not in agreement with the findings of the Trial Court
that the deceased (Arvind) committed suicide in view of the
continuous threats by the accused regarding his being
implicated in a false case of demand of dowry. The evidence
does not disclose that the Appellant instigated the deceased to
commit suicide. There was neither a provocation nor
encouragement by the Appellant to the deceased to commit an
act of suicide. Therefore, the Appellant cannot be held guilty of
abetting the suicide by the deceased.”

12. There was matrimonial dispute. Deceased Rajneesh Choubey,

has criminal record although he has an advocate but about 9 cases
Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(14)

were registered against him. Petitioner-accused lodged a complaint

against deceased Rajneesh Choubey on 07/01/2013. It is mentioned in

that information that deceased Rajneesh Choubey abused and beaten

her. Deceased Rajneesh Choubey also abused her mother and father.

She also lodged a complaint against deceased Rajneesh Choubey on

09/01/2013. It is mentioned in that complaint that deceased Rajneesh

Choubey demanded dowry due to this he abused and tortured her. Due

to behaivour of deceased Rajneesh Choubey she is bound to leave her

matrimonial home. Marg was registered, inquiry was conducted and it

was found that deceased Rajneesh Choubey has criminal record. He

was habitual drinker. It is evident that deceased Rajneesh Choubey

also filed a divorce petition against the petitioner-accused, so prima-

facie it cannot be said that petitioner-accused wants to marry to

another person. There is no act or role of petitioner-accused to abet

deceased Rajneesh Choubey to commit suicide.

13. There is no evidence of active instigation/abetment by the

petitioner-accused to deceased to commit suicide. There is no

sufficient material to demonstrate that the petitioner-accused was

involved in mental process of instigating the deceased to commit

suicide or has intentionally aided the person to commit suicide. It is

also revealed from the record that there is no evidence in relation to

act of continuous torturing of the deceased and the Police officials

have also reached the spot where incident occurred. Occurrence of

such type of incident once or twice would not fall under the purview

of abetment for suicide.

Criminal Revision No. 3574/2018
(Ritu Choubey Vs. State of M.P. another)
(15)

14. There are other various decisions such as case of SectionAshok

Kumar Sawadiya v. State of M.P. [2001(I) MPWN 93]; SectionAbdul Hanif v.

State of M.P. [2002 (II) MPWN 12]; SectionKashiram v. State of M.P. [2006

(I) MPWN 106]; SectionPrakashchand v. State of M.P. [2007 (I) MPWN 20};

SectionPramod Kumar and another v. State of M.P. [2007 (II) MPWN 26];

SectionDevendra Singh v. State of M.P. [2007 (III) MPWN 95]; and SectionNirmal

Jain and others v. State of M.P. [2008 (II) MPWN 66]. In all these

decisions it is laid down that if the instigation for commission of

suicide is not proved by the prosecution then certainly the charge

under Sectionsection 306 IPC cannot be framed.

15. Thus, on perusal of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court relied

on in various decisions of this Court and on perusal of the total

evidence available against the petitioner-accused, it is not proved by

the prosecution that the petitioner-accused had ever instigated the

deceased for commission of suicide and in view of that, framing of the

charge under Section 306 of IPC appears to be erroneous. Hence, the

impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Consequently, the revision

petition is allowed. The impugned order of framing of charge under

Section 306 of IPC against the applicants is set aside and the

petitioner-accused is discharged from the aforesaid charges.

C.C. as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
MISHRA
Digitally signed by
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2019.06.29
12:49:49 +05’30’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation