Dismissed

Umashanker Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2017CRR/1026/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. The court held that prima facie evidence of instigation existed through the suicide note and threats, rejecting the argument for discharge.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition and the accompanying application for stay were dismissed at the motion stage.

Umashanker Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.1026 of 2017

¶4

Umashanker Pandey S/o Shri Manilal Pandey Aged About 48 Years R/o E. W. S. 30, Maharana Pratap Nagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Revisioner/Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balconagar, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Non Revisioner/Respondent

¶9

For Revisioner/applicant : Shri Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For respondent/State : Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board

¶11

03.11.2017

¶12

This revision is directed against order dated 18.9.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Korba (CG) in Session Trial No.56/2017 by which the Sessions Court framed charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the revisioner.

¶13

2 . As per the case of the prosecution, on 21.01.2011 at about 7.00 am wife of the Complainant Laxmanlal Adile committed suicide by hanging herself in the ceiling fan for the reason that the revisioner had taken some photographs from his mobile phone and threatened her that he will publish that photographs to the media. FIR was registered on 01.12.2016 and charges were framed as aforementioned.

¶14

3 . Learned counsel for the revisioner submits that he has no role with the said incident and there is no direct evidence of

¶15

¶16

abetment against him, No offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against him. But the trial Court framed charges against the provisions of law. He further submits that suicide note was not recovered on the date of incident and it was recovered after 15 days and the same cannot be looked into. Therefore, it is a fit case where the revisioner should be discharged. He placed reliance on 2017(2) CG LJ 274 Baldeo Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2016 SC 4486 SPS Rathore Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another and order dated 30.9.2016 of this Court in CrMP No.345/2015.

¶17

4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the above arguments.

¶18

5 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record and the case law cited.

¶19

6 . From the record it appears that the accused/applicant had taken some objectionable photographs of the deceased in his mobile phone and was using the same against her. He threatened the deceased that he will make her obscene photographs viral and that compel her to commit suicide. The suicide note filed before the trial Court clearly mentioned how the deceased was tortured by the revisioner. From the report of hand writing expert prima facie it appears that it is in the hand writing of the deceased. For the offence under Section 306 IPC, there will be prima facie evidence of abetment. Abetment as defined under Section 107 of the IPC and according to the provisions if anyone

¶20

¶21

instigate other person to do a thing or conspire by engaging with someone or for that purpose intentionally aids the deceased to commit the act or omission to do any act.

¶22

7 . At the time of framing of charges, merit of the case cannot be discussed in detail and meticulous examination of the case is not required. If from the evidence collected by the prosecution, prima facie it appears that there is possibility of commission of offence, the charges can be framed.

¶23

8 . In the present case, when the lady was tortured on the basis of some objectionable photographs the same appears to be a case of intentionally aiding her to commit suicide. It is not a case which is groundless to discharge the revisioner and no irregularity or illegality is shown in the order passed by the Sessions Judge.

¶24

9 . The revision is without substance and the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Consequently, IA No.01/17 which is an application for staying the effect and operation of the impugned order stands dismissed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Ram Prasanna Sharma)

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Bini

Umashanker Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umashanker Pandey v. State Of Chhattisgarh

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

Totaram and Ors. Vs the State of M.P. Now C.G.

Surendra Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of M.P.

Chamra@Lakhiram Vs State of C.G.

Sobran and Ors. Vs State

Kashiram Vs Vimla

Prakash Pannalal Vs Pandurang Bhamkar