Dismissed

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Laxmichand Dewangan

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jan 2022CRMP/1398/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the State's application under Section 378 CrPC for appeal against an acquittal in a Section 306 IPC case. The bench held that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and found no clear mens rea to convict the accused for abetting suicide.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC is dismissed.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Laxmichand Dewangan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Cr.M.P No. 1398 of 2017

¶5

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Vers

¶7

Laxmichand Dewangan S/o Late Sukhlal Dewangan, Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Barchapara, P. S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner/State: Shri Gurudev I Sharan, G.a

¶10

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J Order On Board

¶11

10.01.2022

¶12

The State has preferred this application for grant of Appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C, 1973 aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 21.06.2017 passed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) in Sessions Trial No.14/2016 whereby, the accused/Respondent has been acquitted from the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that on 27.09.2015 at 6.00 am, upon receiving information that the body of deceased Lakheshwar Prasad Dewangan was lying at Baldarpara Railway Gate, the police station registered merg No.76/2015 and during investigation, a suicide note (Ex.P-16) has been recovered in which, it was written by the deceased that he had taken loan of Rs.50,000/- from the accused/ Respondent Laxmichand Dewangan, out of which, he repaid Rs.1,50,000/-, however, he produced cheque in the Bank stating that Rs.75,000/- is remaining. A written complaint was made by the wife of the deceased Smt Purnima Dewangan with which, Crime No.302/2015 has been registered.

¶14

After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the

¶15

¶16

accused/Respondent under Section 306 IPC and the case was forwarded to the Sessions Court for trial.

¶17

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused/Respondent has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and examined himself in his defence and produced documents Ex.D-2 to D-18.

¶18

After appreciating the evidence vide the impugned order, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused/Respondent and therefore, acquitted him from the charges alleged.

¶19

Learned State Counsel submits that the Court below has failed to properly appreciate the evidence. He submits further that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the finding of the trial Court is liable to be set aside and prayed to grant leave to Appeal.

¶20

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the entire record.

¶21

It is a settled principle of law that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. There was no option for the deceased other than that of committing suicide due to an act of the accused.

¶22

Section 107 IPC defines abetment of thing as a person abets the doing of a thing, who firstly instigates any person to do that thing or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Merely on allegation of harassment of the deceased for recovery of loan, the ingredients of the abetment are not attracted.

¶23

¶24

In the present case, the deceased had taken loan from the accused/Respondent and in the suicide note, is was mentioned that he had already returned certain amount but the accused/Respondent continued harassing him and therefore, he had to commit suicide. The accused/Respondent has filed a complaint case in the Criminal Court at Champa for dishonour of cheque which was given by the deceased for Rs.75,000/-.

¶25

In view of above, it is established that the conduct of the deceased regarding recovery of loan does not amount to instigate a person to commit suicide.

¶26

Therefore, after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is not perverse, where interference of this Court is required.

¶27

Accordingly, this Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶30

Priya

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Laxmichand Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Laxmichand Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Yashoda Bai Sahu Vs Punarad Sahu

Shalini Raina Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaswant Singh Kailashiya Vs Smt. Kamla Kailashiya

Sujit Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Sitaram Yadav

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Nepal Pradhan