CRPC PROJECT

Shubha Shrivastava V. State of M.P

Submitted By – Submitted To-

1
 Facts of the case
On 17th April 2016, the deceased Ms. Savita Rane, checked in Room No. 109 of Hotel
Ambience, Gwalior. On 18th April 2016, a phone call of a lady namely Riya was received at
the reception of the hotel from her mobile no. 9769048568 and an information was given that
although bell is ringing but Ms. Savita Rane is not picking up the phone, therefore, Ms.
Madhu, Hotel Receptionist, Bell boy Arjun and Supervisor Pankaj checked the room but
inspite of several knocks, Ms. Savita Rane did not respond. Ultimately, the room was opened
with the help of master key and it was found that Ms. Savita Rane had committed suicide by
hanging. Room was locked once again and information was given to the police.
After receipt of the information, the police went on the spot and on search one suicide note,
one letter written in Marathi language, one carbon copy of the letter bearing the
acknowledgment of receipt of Police Station Murar etc. were found. The dead body was sent
for postmortem. During merg enquiry, the police recorded the statements of some of the
witnesses and thereafter registered the F.I.R. against the applicants for offence punishable
under Section 306,34 of I.P.C. The Police after completing the investigation, filed the charge
sheet against the applicants for the above mentioned charges.
The Trial Court by order dated 18-7-2016 framed charge under Section 306 or in the
alternative 306,34 of I.P.C. against the applicants.
The applicants challenged the order dated on 18-7-2016 in the High Court.

2
 Arguments by both Parties
1.) The counsel for the applicants against the order of the trial court submitted that there
is no ocular evidence against the applicants from which an inference may be drawn
that the applicants might have instigated/abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is
further submitted that even if the suicide note or the letter which was found in the
room of the deceased is considered, then no inference can be drawn that the applicants
might have abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

2.) The counsel for the state (prosecutor) per contra stated that it is clear from the letter as
well as the suicide note of the deceased that the applicants were leading a homosexual
life and they had also involved the deceased. The deceased had shifted from Mumbai
to Gwalior and was residing with the applicant no.1 in her room. Due to the unnatural
lifestyle of the applicants and as the deceased too was involved in such unnatural
lifestyle, therefore, her family life had ruined and she wanted to come out of this
unnatural style of life but the applicants were not permitting her to leave their
company, therefore, the deceased was being compelled to live the unnatural lifestyle.
Even one day prior to the date of incident, the matter had travelled upto the police
station but as the matter was compromised therefore, the applicants and the deceased
came back. On the next day, i.e., the deceased left the house for going to Mumbai but
as the applicants had created such a situation before the deceased, where she was left
with no other option but to put an end to her life, therefore, instead of boarding the
train, She checked in Hotel Ambience and ultimately on the next day i.e., 18 th April,
2016, her dead body was found hanging. Thus, it is submitted that the applicants by
compelling the deceased to lead an unnatural lifestyle and the deceased was trying
hard to come out of the said unnatural style of living and as the applicants were not
allowing her to leave their company, therefore, the applicants created such a situation
before the deceased, where She was left with no other option but to put an end to her
life.

3
 Reasoning by the court
1.) Scope of power under section 227 and 228 of Criminal Procedure Code –
The use of words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" in
Section 227 of Cr.P.C. are the most important words which the legislature has used,
meaning thereby, that though not meticulously, but the Trial Court must consider the
allegations made against the applicant and if comes to a conclusion that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, then it shall discharge the
accused. The Court must apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case, and only
thereafter if comes to a conclusion that prima facie there is strong suspicion against
the accused, then must frame charges against him. A strong suspicion is sufficient to
frame charge. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala and
another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398 has held as under :
‘the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" clearly show
that the Judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the
prosecution, but has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to
determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing
this fact, it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter
or into a weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities which is really the
function of the court, after the trial starts.’
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh reported in
(1977) 4 SCC 39 has held as under :
Under Section 226 of the Code while opening the case for the prosecution the
Prosecutor has got to describe the charge against the accused and state by what
evidence he proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. Thereafter comes at the initial
stage the duty of the Court to consider the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith and to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in
that behalf. The Judge has to pass thereafter an order either under Section 227 or
Section 228 of the Code. If "the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons
for so doing", as enjoined by Section 227. If, on the other hand, "the Judge is of
opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence

4
 which-- ... (b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge
against the accused", as provided in Section 228.
Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would
be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and
effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be
meticulously judged. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the
region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the
trial. If the scales of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like
even, at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is
to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand, it is so at the initial stage of making
an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and
generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not
under Section 227.
The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi Vs.
Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya reported in 91990) 4 SCC 76 has held as under :
The next question is what is the scope and ambit of the 'consideration' by the trial
court at that stage. Can he marshal the evidence found on the record of the case and in
the documents placed before him as he would do on the conclusion of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution after the charge is framed? It is obvious that since he is at
the stage of deciding whether or not there exists sufficient grounds for framing the
charge, his enquiry must necessarily be limited to deciding if the facts emerging from
the record and documents constitute the offence with which the accused is charged. At
that stage he may sift the evidence for that limited purpose but he is not required to
marshal the evidence with a view to separating the grain from the chaff. All that he is
called upon to consider is whether there is sufficient ground to frame the charge and
for this limited purpose he must weigh the material on record as well as the
documents relied on by the prosecution.

2.) Honourable High Court after considering the suicide note stated that from the suicide
note, the deceased Savita Rane had leveled an allegation that the applicants are
homosexual and they must be punished so that the life of anybody else may not be
spoiled. On 6 March 2016 also, the Morena police had taken away Smt. Seema
Shrivastava but thereafter She was allowed to go. Thus, from the plain reading of this
suicide note, it appears that the deceased had leveled an allegation that the applicants

5
 are homosexual and they should be punished so that the life of anybody else is not
spoiled. The Counsel for the State submitted that the meaning of this letter is that the
applicants had involved the deceased in the unnatural style of living and the deceased
was fed up with the said life style and therefore, She committed suicide. This
submission made by the Counsel for the State cannot be accepted as in absence of any
specific and clear allegation, nothing can be inferred that the deceased was also being
compelled by the applicants to live the unnatural life style. Thus, in nutshell it is clear
from the suicide note as well as the letter written by the deceased that she had some
grudge or grievances against the applicants, however, nothing could be gathered from
the suicide note or the letter about the said grudge or the grievances. There is no
allegation that the deceased was compelled to live an unnatural style of living. The
allegations are that the applicants are homosexual but it cannot be inferred that the
deceased too was also compelled to live the same lifestyle. Undisputedly, the
applicants are closely related to each other and are residing in the same house along
with other family members. Therefore, the close association of the applicants is not
unnatural.

3.) According to the court the word Abetment involves mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this
Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a
clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which
led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been
intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. (stated
by Supreme court in S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahaja (2010) 12 SCC 190 ).
The Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.
reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371 has held as under: "The word "instigate" denotes
incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite.
Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation."
As the learned counsel for the state submitted that present case falls under 107 IPC
which is refuted by this court as no inference of abetment can be drawn.

6
4.) The court in it’s final conclusion stated as follow : it is clear that the deceased Smt.
Savita Rane had levelled an allegation against the applicants that they are
homosexual, and they have spoiled her life and they should be punished but there is
nothing on record from which an inference may be drawn that the applicants had
created such a situation where the deceased Smt. Savita Rane was left with no other
option but to put her life to an end. The inference which has been suggested by the
Counsel for the State that the deceased Smt. Savita Rane wanted to leave her
unnatural style of living but She was not allowed to do so and She was being
compelled to live the unnatural style of living cannot be accepted as there is not a
single whisper in the suicide note or in the letter written by deceased Smt. Savita Rane
to the effect that She was also forced to adopt the unnatural lifestyle. Undisputedly,
the deceased Smt. Savita Rane was the resident of Mumbai where She had husband,
son and other in-laws inspite of that She shifted to Gwalior all alone in connection
with her job and was living as a paying guest in the house of the applicants. The
deceased Smt. Savita Rane was living at Gwalior for the last several years. If She was
not happy with the applicants, then She could have either changed her place of
residence or She could have gone back to Mumbai, but as she continued to live in
Gwalior without making any complaint, then it cannot be inferred that She was
compelled by the applicants to live an unnatural style of life. No investigation has
been done by the police with regard to her relations with her in-laws. In the letter, She
had mentioned that her one mistake had spoiled her family life. What was that
mistake has not been investigated by the police. The husband, child or other in-laws
of the deceased Smt. Savita Rane could have thrown some light in the matter, but no
investigation was done by the police in that direction. According to the prosecution, a
phone was received at the reception from one Riya, from Mumbai, but the police has
also not recorded the statement of Riya. The crux of the matter is that the deceased
had certain grievances against the applicants. She was feeling alone and was upset
because her family life was ruined, but no inference can be drawn that it was the
applicants who had ruined her family life.

7
 Decision

The honourable High Court in it’s decision set aside the order of the trial court and
discharged the applicants. The High Court in it’s order stated as follow :
Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that even if the entire allegations are
accepted in toto, at the most it can be inferred that the deceased Smt. Savita Rane had some
grievances against the applicants, but there is nothing on record which may indicate that what
were those grievances? Under these circumstances, no inference can be drawn against the
applicants that they at any point of time had abetted the deceased to commit suicide.
Consequently, the order dated 18-7-2016 passed by 11 th A.S.J., Gwalior in S.T. No.
202/2016 is hereby set aside. The applicants are discharged.

...………………….J
G.S
AHLUWALIA