T.P.S.MANN, J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed by Mohinder Singh @ Mahender Singh and his brother Satender Singh against the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhiwani on 18.3.2006 whereby charges under Sections 306/34 IPC were ordered to be framed against them and their co-accused.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present case are that complainant Jai Lal had three sons including deceased Dalip. In the FIR lodged by said Jai Lal, he stated that in the month of October, 2002 his son Dalip received legal notice on behalf of Mir Singh s/o Maha Singh in respect of recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-. On 5.11.2002, the complainant gave an application to SHO Police Station Dadri for registration of a case under Sections 420/468/467/479/471/384/34/120B IPC against Mir Singh, Mahender Singh, Satender Singh, Rajinder and Fateh Singh, Advocate stating therein that a pro-note had been forged by them, purporting to have been executed by Dalip for an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-. On account of the aforementioned circumstances, Dalip used to remain depressed. On 17.11.2002 Dalip, with the members of his family, slept in his house. Next morning complainant Jai Lal was informed by his grandson Ajay that Dalip was not present since the previous night. A search was conducted which led to the recovery of Khes and a pair of Chappals lying near the well which belonged to Dalip. It was alleged that Dalip committed suicide due to the forgery of his signatures and receipt of legal notice for recovery of the loan amount and due to harassment on account of the said facts, he ended his life by jumping into the well. After the conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It was thereafter entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhiwani for trial. After finding a prima facie case against the accused, the trial Court ordered the framing of charges under Sections 306/34 IPC against the petitioners and their co- accused.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no sufficient evidence on the record from which it could be inferred that the accused were liable to be charged. Even, the police was aware of the same and in connivance with the complainant, it introduced the evidence about a suicide note said to have been left by the deceased, which was shown to have been taken into possession by the police on 25.11.2002. Even though the alleged suicide note was not signed by the deceased, thus, there was no evidence that the same was in the hand-writing of the deceased. The said note was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for getting opinion about the authorship of the same as had been done by sending the pro-note. Even complainant Jai Lal did not accept the police version that the alleged suicide note was recovered from the deceased. In fact, said Jai Lal had submitted an application on 24.2.2003 to the Director General of Police, Haryana wherein he specifically wrote that the alleged suicide note was not in the hand-writing of the deceased and instead it was a case falling under Section 302 IPC which had been registered only under Section 306. Finally, it was prayed that the order directing framing of charges against the petitioners be set aside and they be discharged.;