LAXMI PRASAD VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused, Laxmi Prasad, has called in question the legal validity of the order dated 16.7.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 52/2001 whereby the learned trial Judge has framed charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').

(2.) THE facts as have been unfurled are that the petitioner is a resident of Azad Ward, Kandeli. Narsinghpur. An FIR was lodged against him by H.P. Singh, Sub Inspector. Kotwali Narsinghpur on the ground that the petitioner had abetted in causing suicide of Mahendra Kothari and hence, he had committed an offence under section 306 IPC. After the matter was committed to the Court of learned trial Judge question of framing of charge arose and the petitioner pleaded that ingredients of offence punishable under section 306 were not satisfied and, therefore, framing of charge in regard to that offence is untenable. The aforesaid stand of the petitioner was negatived and charge was framed by the learned trial Judge. Assailing the aforesaid order it is submitted by Mr. Shashank Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, that even if the allegations are accepted in entirety, no offence under section 306 IPC is made out and. therefore, framing of charge under that offence is totally unwarranted. Pyramiding his submission it is urged by him that if the concept of abetment as defined under section 107 IPC is understood in proper perspective, the instant case does not indicate any kind of abetment at the instance of the petitioner and, therefore, he is entitled to an order of discharge. Mr. Robertson, learned Government Advocate for the State, sounding a contra note combatted the submission of Mr. Upadhyaya by stating that the present petitioner had harassed the deceased and, therefore, the factum of abetment cannot be totally ruled out and this is not a case where this Court should dwell upon the same.

(3.) I have carefully persued the aforesaid two statements. On a scrutiny of the same it transpires that Laxmi Prasad had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - from the deceased and on demand being made by Late Mahendra Kothari on number of occasions the petitioner did not pay the same. All attempts made by the deceased became an exercise in futility.