Case Note & Summary
The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the High Court's order discharging the respondent, Deepak, from charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case arose from the suicide of Jyoti Sharma on 9 August 2017, who consumed poison and died the next day. Her dying declaration, recorded by a Naib Tehsildar, stated that the respondent had molested her, caused her to lose jobs, and harassed her. The FIR was registered on 16 August 2017, and after investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Special Judge framed charges on 10 January 2018. The respondent filed a criminal revision before the High Court, which discharged him, holding there was no evidence of provocation, incitement, or encouragement for suicide. The Supreme Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, citing precedents like Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited revisional power by conducting a meticulous examination of evidence at the charge-framing stage. The dying declaration and prior complaints (including allegations of loan forgery, termination from employment, and ouster from possession) prima facie indicated a continued course of conduct that could constitute abetment. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the charges, and directed the trial to proceed expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised routinely; it is meant to correct patent defects or errors of jurisdiction or law, not to re-appreciate evidence at the stage of framing charge (Paras 11-13). B) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Ingredients - Abetment may be inferred from a continued course of conduct creating circumstances leaving the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide; instigation need not be explicit (Para 14). C) Evidence - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value - A dying declaration recorded by a Naib Tehsildar is admissible and can form the basis for framing charges if it prima facie indicates instigation or harassment (Paras 4, 7). D) Criminal Procedure - Framing of Charge - Test for Prima Facie Case - At the stage of framing charge, the court must consider whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence; meticulous examination of evidence is not required (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC in discharging the respondent from charges under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, given the dying declaration and other material on record.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the charges framed by the Special Judge. Directed the trial court to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited
- at the stage of framing charge
- court must consider prima facie case
- not sufficiency of evidence
- abetment under Section 306 IPC can be inferred from continued course of conduct creating circumstances leaving no option but suicide
- dying declaration is substantive evidence.
