Dismissed

Lalita Devi W/O Shri Pawan Tailor v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Oct 2023CRLR/38/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.C.R.P., the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the framing of criminal charges under Sections 306 and 34 IPC for abetment of suicide. Upholding the trial court's order, the High Court held that sufficient material existed on record to proceed against the petitioner given her presence in the FIR and suicide note, rejecting the claim of lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The S.C.R.P. is dismissed. The order framing charges under Section 306 IPC is held to be legal.

Lalita Devi W/O Shri Pawan Tailor Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:41370]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 38/2022

¶4

Lalita Devi W/o Shri Pawan Tailor, Aged About 57 Years, R/o P.no 19, Green Avenu, Meeno Ki Dhani, Charan Nadi Ii, Muralipura Jaipur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Raghu Nandan Sharma with
	Mr.	Nikhil Kumawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	S.S. Mahala,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶11

17/10/2023

¶12

Instant revision petition is preferred aggrieved from order dated 17.11.2021 in Sessions Case No. 189/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Woman Atrocities Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan-1, whereby charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that complainant-Babita, lodged a report on 18.10.2019 and on the basis of aforesaid, FIR under Section 306 IPC was registered, wherein no allegations were made against the petitioner. He also submitted that in the statement the allegation was to provide assistance in obtaining loan and blackmailing in garb of blank cheque, but the petitioner has never obtained any black cheque from deceased. He specifically referred Section 306 and 108 of IPC and submitted that there has

(2 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:41370]

[CRLR-38/2022]

to be continued course of conduct which instigated the deceased to commit suicide is required to be established. He further submitted that as per the allegation, it was Jubeda Khan, who indulged in money lending on higher rate of interest, who procured blank cheque from deceased. The connection between petitioner and Jubeda is not proved from any evidence. He further submitted that as per allegation, the amount Rs.7,50,000/- was filled in blank cheque and due to which deceased-Prem Chand Jangir felt stress and ultimately he committed suicide but again the petitioner was connected with this act. He further submitted that not a single iota of evidence is available on record to involve present petitioner therefore framing of charge under Section 306/34 IPC against the petitioner is not based on material on record. He further submitted that petitioner is entitled to be discharged.

¶18

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 5. On the basis of written report filed by complainant-Babita Jangir W/o deceased-Prem Chand Jangir, an FIR No. 1029/2019 was registered at Police Station Kardhani, wherein allegations were made against Jubeda Khan, Lalita, Shanker, Rakesh Yadav and Santosh aunty. On the basis of aforesaid report, police had carried out investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. During investigation, the witnesses have stated that deceasedPrem Chand stuck in the trap of interest Mafia, who procured the

[2023:RJ-JP:41370]

[CRLR-38/2022]

(3 of 4)

blank cheques from deceased. The statement of complainant further indicated that present petitioner visited the house of deceased to intimidate him. Further, a suicide note is also recovered in the matter along with other digital proofs. According to seizure memo of suicide note, the deceased fixed responsibility of suicide upon Jubeda, Shanker, Lalita, Rakesh Yadav and Santosh.

¶24

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 2 SCC 398, State of Karnataka Lokayukta Vs. M.R. Herimath (2019) 7 SCC 515, State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs. Marothi (2023) 4 SCC 298, State of T.N. Vs. Suresh Rajan & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 709 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) 11 SCC 191, observed that it is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of charge, entire evidence proposed by the prosecution is to be believed and in case no case is made out, then, accused can be discharged though, at the stage of charge, truthfulness, sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced cannot be considered and same is subject matter of trial. The trial court is duty bound to satisfy that prima facie case is made out against accused and from material on record and ingredients of offence are made out to frame charge.

¶25

In view of aforesaid, the learned trial court after considering the material on record has passed a reasoned order and on the basis of material on record has framed charge against the petitioner. The present petitioner was named in FIR and also in the suicide note. Further, an overt act against the petitioner was also stated by the complainant in her statement. In order to frame a

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JP:41370]

[CRLR-38/2022]

charge for abetment of suicide, there must be sufficient evidence on record to justify criminal intent and an active or direct act of investigation to deceased leading to suicide. The abetment is a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally assisting a person in carrying out an act. Therefore to attract Section 306 IPC, the evidence must be that the accused abetted, entices or compels someone to commit suicide.

¶30

Therefore, looking to aforesaid there are sufficient material on record to proceed against the petitioner. Hence, there is no illegality in the order of learned trial court while framing the charge against the petitioner.

¶31

In view of aforesaid, the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

Thus, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶33

Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶34

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶35

CHETNA BEHRANI /477

Lalita Devi W/O Shri Pawan Tailor v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Devi W/O Shri Pawan Tailor v. State of Rajasthan

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

Makkhan Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Ramratan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Beena Devi W/O Shri Jagdish Saini B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Maharaj Singh S/O Fooliram Gurjar Vs Sukhveer Singh S/O Man Singh Gurjar

Suresh Yadav S/O Shri Nathmal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Meenal Jain Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp