Dismissed

Smt. Annapurna Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2019A482/8387/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for abetment of suicide. The High Court held that the charge sheet disclosed a cognizable offence and found no abuse of process or malafide, directing the lower court to consider a discharge plea on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for quash proceeded dismissed; accused permitted to seek discharge within one month.

Smt. Annapurna Mishra Vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

In Chamber

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8387 of 2005

¶4

Applicant :- Smt. Annapurna Mishra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Jain Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S.K. Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶6

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant, Annpurna Devi with request to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 10958 of 2004 (State Vs. Gopal Tiwari and Others) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi arising out of Charge-sheet dated 23.11.2003 relates to case crime no. 396 of 2003 under Section 306 I.P.C. of Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

¶7

Brief facts of this case are as follows-:

¶8

That on 15.09.2003 at about 9.10 pm, opposite party no. 2, Sri Rati Ram Dubey has lodged an F.I.R. under Section 306 I.P.C. at Police Station Bhelupur, District Varanasi against applicant and two others annexed as Annexure No. 1. That body of deceased was found lying in pond on 15.09.2003 at about 3.45 p.m. That one Vishuddhanand Mishra gave an application to S.H.O. of Police Station Bhelupur, Varanasi in this regard. That on this information, an inquest report of the body was prepared at 6.00 p.m. That applicant is named in the F.I.R. That on 16.09.2003 at about 2.30 p.m., the post mortem of the body was conducted as unknown female as the identity of the body could not be fixed. Later on after lodging the F.I.R. the body was identified as Radha Devi. That after registration of F.I.R., investigation officer has started its

¶9

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8387 of 2005

¶10

Page No.1/6

¶11

investigation. Investigation Officer has recorded the statement of opposite party no. 2, Munni Devi w/o opposite party no. 2 and Smt. Kiran Dubey wife of Ram Ji. That on 25.09.2003, investigation officer has recorded the statement of Pramod Kumar. That statement of all the witnesses is based on hearsay. That on 27.10.2003, Investigation Officer has recorded the statements of Ram Ji Dubey s/o opposite party no. 2 and Punita Dubey wife of Bharat Dubey. Both the witnesses has never stated about the torture of the deceased by applicant. That they never heard about it. On 23.11.2003, after investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted charge-sheet against the applicant and two others under Section 306 I.P.C. That after filing of the charge-sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance and the case is still pending in his court as Criminal Case No. 10958 of 2004.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that on perusal of the entire material available on record as well as statements of the witnesses record during investigation, did not disclose prima facie offence under Section 306 I.P.C. against applicant. So on this ground alone, charge-sheet dated 23.01.2003 is liable to be quashed. It is also argued that there is no imputation regarding instigation for committing suicide by deceased. He further submitted that applicant is sister-in-law of deceased and is now aged about 70 years. She is not even remotely concerned with the family affairs of the deceased, so she is not liable for the said offence. It is also stated that deceased Radha Devi was suffering from epilepsy and she was under continuous medical treatment since 1995 and photocopy of her medical report is filed as Annexure No. 9. He further submitted that due to epilepsy, very often she received its fits, therefore, it appears that a fateful day she

¶14

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8387 of 2005

¶15

Page No.2/6

¶16

received the fits of Epilepsy while either she was passing through the ponds or was standing there and as a result drowned in the pond and this contention is supported by the post mortem report in which reason of death is drowning. He further submitted that on a bare perusal of entire evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no evidence of abatement of instigation to commit suicide by the applicant nor there is any evidence on record which shows that applicant can torture or harass the deceased and due to which, deceased committed suicide. He further argued that clear cut ingredient of section 306 I.P.C. that death must be occurred due to suicide but there is no such evidence available on record. It is also argued that death of deceased either accidental or homicidal, hence the entire proceedings against the applicant as well as charge-sheet dated 23.11.2003, are liable to be quashed.

¶17

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has filed its counter in which he contended that applicant is very clever lady and master mind about the development of the case concerned, which is known as well by the inhabitant of the locality. He further contended that statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is based on hearsay evidence but all the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in support of prosecution version. He further contended that F.I.R. has fully discloses prima facie case under Section 306 I.P.C. against applicant and thereafter, the abovesaid case crime number was registered and charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant as well as two other persons under Section 306 I.P.C. He further argued that facts and circumstances established that suicide is committed by deceased and also contended that it is a settled principle that if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for a women except to commit suicide and in the present case there are evidence against the applicant which fully proved about her involvement in the aforesaid crime. He further contended that deceased, Radha Devi, was not a

¶18

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8387 of 2005

¶19

Page No.3/6

¶20

patient of epilepsy nor she was under continuous medical treatment since 1995. Entire medical report is fictitious and fabricated. He further argued that on perusal of the post mortem report, it is clearly established that suicide was committed by deceased, Radha Devi. Body of the deceased was recovered from the pond and this fact came in newspaper, and thereafter, husband of the deceased has identified the clothes of the deceased as to his wife Radha Devi whereas he has fully knowledge about the death of Rahda Devi. He further contended that entire facts and circumstances established that prima facie serious allegation made out against the applicant and she is not entitled to get any sympathy, so the application filed by the applicant is devoid on merit and liable to rejected.

¶21

The main contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that after bare perusal of the F.I.R. no offence under Section 306 is made out against the applicant. For this learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the Apex Court judgments:-

¶22

I. S.S. Chheena Versus Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 190 Para 25

¶23

“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 I.P.C. 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. ”

¶24

Learned counsel for opposite parties has also relied upon the following judgments:-

¶25

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8387 of 2005

¶26

Page No.4/6

¶27

“i. Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu Versus State of West Bengal (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 707.

¶28

ii. Gurcharan Singh Versus State of Punjab (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 433

¶29

iii. K.V. Prakash Babu Versus State of Karnataka AIR (2016) Supreme Court 5430

¶30

iv. Gangula Mohan Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) Supreme Court Cases 750

¶31

v. Heera Lal and Another Versus State of Rajasthan AIR (2017) Supreme Court Cases 2425”

¶32

Learned counsel for the applicant has cited abovesaid Apex Court judgments related to the appeal filed by the applicant for quashing the conviction after facing full trial and after dismissal of the first appeal, so the above cited law does not help to the applicant.

¶33

On perusal of the entire case, it appears that charge-sheet has been submitted by the Investigating Officer under Section 306 I.P.C. after collecting the material evidence against applicant so it cannot be said, at this stage that no cognizable offence is made out against the applicant. It cannot be said at this stage that criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and or the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. On perusal of the F.I.R. and statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witness, clearly stated that the deceased-Radha forced to commit suicide on account of mental and physical torture by the applicant.

¶34

10.If the concerned court after hearing the counsel for the accused feels persuaded to have the view that the accused ought not to have been summoned and the charge is groundless it shall not abstain from discharging the accused only on the ground that the material available at the time of summoning, was the same which is available on record at the time of hearing the discharge application.

¶35

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8387 of 2005

¶36

Page No.5/6

¶37

On the other hand, if the lower court even after hearing the counsel for accused holds the view that the accused has been rightly summoned and the material brought on record does not indicate the charges to be groundless it shall make an order to that effect and proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law and shall also be free to adopt such measures to procure the attendance of the accused as the law permits.

¶38

In the absence of any of the grounds recognized by the Supreme Court which might justify the quashing of complaint or the impugned proceedings, the prayer for quashing the same is refused as I do not see any abuse of the courts process either. The trial court has been vested with sufficient powers to discharge the accused even before the stage to frame the charges comes, if for reasons to be recorded it considers the charge to be groundless.

¶39

12.As requested, the applicants are permitted to appear before the concerned court within a month from today through their counsel and move an application claiming discharge. The concerned court shall after hearing the counsel decide the application on merits, in accordance with law, within a period which shall not exceed a period of three months from today.

¶40

13.No coercive measures shall be adopted against the applicant for a period of three months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier.

¶41

14.Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly, disposed of as dismissed .

¶42

15.The office is directed to transmit back the record of the lower court with a copy of judgment and order of this Court for immediate compliance.

¶43

Order Date:- 16^th April, 2019 Vibha Singh

¶44

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8387 of 2005

¶45

Page No.6/6

Smt. Annapurna Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Annapurna Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishi Pal Chandel and Others. Vs State of U.P and Another

Sajjan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Singh and Others Vs State and Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rashid Vs State of U.P.