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 that there was no evidence of provocation, incitement, or encouragement for suicide. The Supreme Court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, which held that revisional interference is limited and should not be exercised to re-appreciate evidence at the charge-framing stage. The Court noted that the dying declaration and three prior complaints by the deceased against the respondent constituted prima facie material for the charges. The Court also referred to Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), which held that a continued course of conduct creating circumstances leaving no option but suicide can amount to instigation. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by conducting a meticulous examination of evidence and substituting its view for that of the trial court. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - 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) Indian Penal Code - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Ingredients - Abetment of suicide requires instigation, engagement, or intentional aid; however, a continued course of conduct creating circumstances leaving the deceased with no option but to commit suicide may constitute instigation (Para 14). C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Offence under Section 3(2)(v) - Prima Facie Case - Where the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the accused allegedly harassed her due to her caste, the dying declaration and prior complaints provide prima facie material for framing charge (Paras 4-7). D) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Evidentiary Value - A dying declaration recorded by a Naib Tehsildar is admissible and can form the basis for framing charge if it implicates the accused (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court correctly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with 401 CrPC in discharging the respondent from charges under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, despite the existence of a dying declaration and prior complaints indicating harassment.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 31 January 2018 and restored the charges framed by the Special Judge, Neemuch. The trial court was directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
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 of suicide under Section 306 IPC can be inferred from continued course of conduct creating circumstances leaving no option but suicide
- dying declaration is substantive evidence.
