JAIBHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 11-08-2014 passed by the Court of VII Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No.271/2014; whereby a charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against accused/petitioner Jaibhan Singh.

(2.) The case of the prosecution before the trial Court may be summarized as hereunder: Deceased Satya Singh was married to accused Jaibhan Singh on 04-05-2001. The deceased has a nine years old daughter Khushi and one year old son Ujwal from the marriage. The accused treated the deceased well till the year 2004. However, thereafter, the accused started persecuting the deceased. Accused Jaibhan Singh was in love with some other girl. Before Khushi, a daughter was born to the couple, who did not survive. After Khushi was born, accused Jaibhan Singh used to taunt the deceased that she gives birth only to daughters. He also used to say that she does not perform any work and relaxes the whole day. She was also beaten up resulting in a five month abortion. Thereafter, her uncle Arun Pratap Singh brought her to her matrimonial home at Chorhata. However, no one from the side of the accused came to pick her up.

(3.) The order framing charge has been assailed on behalf of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the three ingredients necessary to constitute abetment under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are missing in the case and in the absence of those ingredients, the offence of abetment of suicide punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The charge framed under section 306 of the I.P.C. merely on the allegation of harassment, is not sustainable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., 2002 5 SCC 371 and judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Vishnu Prasad vs. State of M.P., 2005 3 MPLJ 23. Thus, it has been contended that even if all allegations made against the accused/petitioner are taken at their face value, his act and conduct would not come under the purview of abetment of suicide.