THIS CRLRP FiLE:D U/8.397 R/_W_v_é§.§)1'
PRAYING T0 SET ASIDE THE QRDE:-R '3:.v2(.>1£:«,
PASSED BY THE XXXH ADDL. C'IfFY:;'_CE'§'ILii
SPL. JUDGE FOR CB}? .g:AsE's,_"'* BAb:G;x;,.€}_§:e§'_j'; "11-«I
S.C.NO.6i2/2009.
THIS pETiT1QN14_{ieM{%NQ--1VdN.._FLL:3wi';1\{(:»:
ieiégzfnede'-Ge€fei'e1'*i'inent Pieader Sri. P.
Kaieunakar V iiijr. _ i ' ' 'p.etiii0r1er--State and learned
counseh Sifi." T""--§'§aJghaVendra Reddy for the
r»e§s.pc>11derV1t's.s irespect of the petition filed
the eider of discharge passed by the trial
'
The respondents were accused of having
.. e0I1.:ii:*1iti;ed the offence punishable under Eeetion 306
A’ ‘,’z.’;’4§?’ 34: 0f {PC and the proseeutien allegation in short
is that, the respendents herein had advaneeci loan of
?1.35 erores to deceased Javed Akhtar and his wife
5′:
5
y
Hajira Bi. Javed Akhtar iiiiied his wife _
shooting her with his revolver and afte.rI.v_ards’.he._a}s’o -,
Committed suicide. Initially a Case’ was tegisiteredi
the offence punishable tinder
IPC. After the inVestigation:”and tip.on’At:<"eeeivptVVesf the
ESL report, the Charge _«'sheeet':'utas' fiiedvvhagiainst the
accused persons for .AAfp.tn1__ishab1e under
Section 3Q.6':of'_~the§;_AIP¢ put forward to
the effeet35Ehat'h__.ih.ese 'aeeu_..sed persons had told the
decea%seci..V.eetipie– cannot pay the loan
taken its is..i_5et_ter they go and die.
VVLea'1;fnied V'*~'oounse1 for the respondents
thatrieven if the prosecution theory is
V face Value viz., that the respondents
ithiereinhad uttered the words 'go and die if you are
not a position to repay the loan', that itself would
attraet the offence 12;' s 306 of the PC. in this
Connection, learned Counsel referred to the Apex
Court decision reported in i9§5 Supp {3} S,C.C.438
.£;.;
wherein the Apex Court held that, though the
appellant in the said ease allegedly remarked.
deceased to go and die, the suicide eomntittiedéeatznoi. .
be held to be as a direct resnlt….of the’ix?ord_e. ‘littered ‘”
by the appellant and the eotirt tifenlt on
further that, those were words, of _clas11al”-nature * V
which are often ernployedV-tnllietleefleatloftheelnoment
between quarrellingéll serious is
expected to act does not
reflect the assumption that
theee” in all events. The
otheig ll lay down the same
ptop0S1ti’on;’ are §%eepo~r£ed m 1995 Crl.L.J.893, 2008
“””
‘*j;}l’aving regard to the aferesaid decisions
rlefer:V”ed’x: to by the learned Counsel for the
2 AA ‘:*e.spendentet I see no error being eornnntted by the
learned trial judge in allowing the application filed by
;;«e” E’
.,
“J:
the respondents seeking discharge 1;/s 227′ ef the
Cr.P.C.
The petition therefore lacks _& V’
dismissed.
Dvr: