:1: In the Court of Ms. [ENTITY] Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi. [CASE NUMBER] Unique ID No.: 02401R0650072006 [ENTITY] Versus 1) [ENTITY] S/o Sh.Amar Singh R/o A70, LIG Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi. 2) [ENTITY] S/o Sh.[ENTITY] R/o D171, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. 3) [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o 8163/6, Arakasha Road Nabi Karim, Delhi. Case arising out of: FIR : 137/05 Police Station : Nabi Karim Under [SECTION] [ACT] Judgment reserved on : 06.02.2012 Judgment pronounced on : 18.02.2012 JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as borne out from the charge sheet are that on receipt of DD No.36A on 21.04.2005 at PS Nabi Karim, SI [ENTITY] along with Ct.[ENTITY] reached the place of incident i.e. H.No.8079/8, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, Delhi, where SHO concerned also reached. As per instructions of the SHO, the dead body of the deceased [ENTITY], which was found in the aforesaid house with both the hands tied with the plastic rope and electric wire, was taken to the mortuary of MAMC for being preserved. The wife and children of the deceased were at Ludhiana Punjab and thus no family member was met at the spot. However, suicide notes of 26 pages written on both the sides were recovered from the place of occurrence, which were seized along with the electric wire and the plastic rope with which dead body of the deceased was tied. The body of the deceased was sent for post mortem.
2. The wife of the deceased [ENTITY] who had reached Delhi on the next day was shown the photocopy of the suicide notes, on which she identified the handwriting and signatures of the deceased. The statement of the complainant [ENTITY], wife of the deceased was also recorded wherein she contended that she was residing at Ludhiana Punjab at the time of death of her husband with her three children. She further stated that her husband earlier used to do the business of readymade garments and 34 years prior to the date of incident he used to sit with [ENTITY], being the partner in the shop of [ENTITY] Properties. About one and a half year prior to death of her husband, [ENTITY] also started doing the business in [ENTITY] Properties with [ENTITY]. Later on [ENTITY] got started the renovation work in the said shop of [ENTITY] Properties and hanged the board of '[ENTITY] Properties and Makan & Co.' outside the said shop.
3. She further stated in her complaint that accidentally the said board which was fixed outside the said shop was damaged and [ENTITY] replaced it with another board having only the name of '[ENTITY] Properties'. It was further alleged by the complainant that [ENTITY] used to hold responsible her deceased husband for this incident and on this count only [ENTITY], his brother [ENTITY] and his father [ENTITY] used to taunt her husband and used harass him frequently by levelling false allegations upon him. They also used to threaten him to kill and due to this mental agony and depression, her husband's health got deteriorated. The complainant further stated in her complaint that when she asked from her husband [ENTITY], he told her that from the day [ENTITY] has joined him in Property business, he is mentally disturbed because [ENTITY] was not a good person and was also known by the name of [ENTITY] in the locality. The complainant was further told by her husband that just because of wrong acts of [ENTITY], his image got tarnished in the market. The complainant further alleged that for the last few days prior to the incident, her husband was so terrorized and traumatized by [ENTITY], his brother [ENTITY] and his father [ENTITY] that he committed suicide on 21.04.2005.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, the case in hand was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the court. After committal of the case, the accused persons were charged with offences punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] vide order dated 02.03.2009, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 12 witnesses. The statement of the accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] was recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] on 09.12.2011 and that of accused [ENTITY] was recorded under [SECTION] [ACT] on 15.12.2011, wherein all the accused persons denied the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. They also claimed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They claimed that the deceased was depressed and frustrated. He was unemployed and had committed suicide as he was mentally unstable. Two defence witnesses were also examined by the accused in their defence in support of their contention that the deceased was mentally disturbed.
6. I have heard arguments advanced by learned defence counsel and ld. APP representing the [ENTITY] and have also gone through the material on record.
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon the deposition of the complainant Smt.[ENTITY] (PW6), who is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that her husband late [ENTITY] used to do the work of readymade garments and later started the business of property dealing under the name and style of [ENTITY] properties, which was a partnership concern of [ENTITY] and her late husband and accused used to work together. She further deposed that they were doing this work since year 2000 and they continued to sit together in the shop for about 34 years and about 1 year prior to death of her husband accused [ENTITY] also started doing the said business in [ENTITY] Properties. She further stated that all the three accused persons and her deceased husband became equal partners in [ENTITY] Properties. Earlier there was a board of '[ENTITY] Properties' outside the shop which was later changed to '[ENTITY] and Makan Company'. She further stated that the accused persons used to do fake business in property and name her deceased husband for their wrong deeds. Her deceased husband used to remain very disturbed because of this reason as he used to tell her the same. She further deposed that the board of '[ENTITY] and Makan Company' was broken accidently after which [ENTITY] again fixed the board of '[ENTITY] Properties' outside the shop. The accused persons started blaming her husband for this and started threatening to kill him because of this reason.
8. She also deposed that accused [ENTITY] is also known as [ENTITY] and that her husband used to remain very tense and disturbed because of the threatening and harassment by the accused persons and because of this reason he committed suicide on 21.04.2005. She further deposed that the accused persons did not give his share of commission to her husband in property dealing and her family was facing great hardships and financial crisis. Her statement given to the police was exhibited as Ex.PW6/A and she identified the handwriting and signatures of her husband on the suicide note Ex.PW6/B. She also deposed that she identified the dead body of her deceased husband vide Ex.PW6/C and deposed that the police also seized a document Ex.PW6/E running into two sheets bearing signatures of her deceased husband at point A1.
9. The prosecution also examined Sh.[ENTITY] as PW5, who deposed that he has been running the business in property dealing at office No.9229/5, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, Delhi from last 10 years. He further deposed that the deceased had worked with him as an employee. He stated that met accused [ENTITY] only once with the deceased who introduced him. He further stated that the deceased never made any complaint to him nor did he ask him to leave the job. The witness further stated that neither accused [ENTITY] nor any of his family members run the business of property in his partnership or from his office.
10. PW5 was declared hostile by the prosecution and was crossexamined by the learned APP, wherein he denied that accused [ENTITY] had started business in property with him or that [ENTITY] had got his ship renovated and decorated and was the partner of 50% share in commission and remaining 50% was equally divided between him and the deceased. He further denied the suggestion that the accused persons used to visit his office.
11. Besides the said witness, the prosecution has also examined one [ENTITY] as PW4 with whom the deceased was earlier working in his business of property dealing till 2005. However, this witness also failed to support the case of the prosecution and was crossexamined at length by the ld. APP.
12. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution also relied upon the deposition of PW1 ASI [ENTITY], who deposed as regards the registration of the FIR in this case. PW2 Insp.[ENTITY] who was posted in the Mobile Crime Team deposed that on 21.04.2005, when he reached at the house of the deceased, he saw that a body was lying dead and his hands were tied with a nylone rope and electric wires were entangled with his hands. He further deposed that the photographs were taken by Ct. [ENTITY] at the spot and he prepared the report which is Ex.PW2/A. The photographer Ct.[ENTITY] was brought into the witness box as PW3 who proved the photographs of the spot as Ex.PW3/A1 to Ex.PW3/A9 and their negatives as Ex.PW3/B1 to Ex.PW3/B9.
13. Dy. Govt. Examiner, CFSL Sh.[ENTITY], was examined as PW7, who proved his report as regards the signatures of the deceased on the suicide notes Ex.PW6/B. The said report is Ex.PW7/A. The witnesses of the investigation examined by the prosecution include PW8 SI [ENTITY], PW9 [ENTITY] and PW12 SI [ENTITY]. PW10 Dr.[ENTITY] proved the post mortem report of the deceased and opined the cause of death of deceased [ENTITY] as 'Electrocution'.
14. On the basis of the evidence led on record, it is pointed out by the ld. APP that the allegations against the accused persons stand duly proved on record. He has placed reliance on the deposition of PW6 [ENTITY] in support of his arguments that from the statement of PW6, it is clearly made out that the deceased committed suicide on account of the fact that he used to remain mentally disturbed as the accused persons used to threaten and harass him.
15. Before analyzing the evidence on record, it is necessary in my opinion to deal with the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT], which prescribes the punishment of abetment of suicide. The term 'abetment' has been defined under [SECTION] [ACT] and has been discussed by the Superior Courts through various pronouncements. In Laxmi & Anr. vs. [ENTITY] reported as 85(2000) DLT 319, the Hon'ble High Court while dealing with the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] and 107 [ACT] laid down that "Abetment is thus, (1) by instigating a person to commit an offence, or (2) by engaging in a conspiracy to commit it, or (3) by intentionally aiding a person to commit it". In [PRECEDENT], the meaning of the word "instigate" has been explained as under:
"A person is said to instigate another to act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
In Rishi Kumar vs. [ENTITY] of Haryana, 1988 (1) All India Criminal Law Reports 615, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also explained the meaning of the word "instigate" as under: "The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
Thus, in the context of the offence, the word "instigate" would mean to suggest, provoke, incite or encourage or stimulate to do an act or to urge forward.
"Conspiracy" consists in a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act or to effect a legal purpose by illegal means. In order to constitute the offence of abetment any conspiracy, there must be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing. And a person abets by aiding when by any act done, either prior to, or at the time of, commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate the commission thereof.
In order to constitute abetment by aiding, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime (Sri Ram vs. [ENTITY] of UP, AIR 1975 SC 175).
Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble High Court in Hira Lal Jain vs. [ENTITY] reported as 87(2000) DLT 265, where it has also been held that "From a reading of the [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is clear that a person who instigates another to do a thing, abets him to do that thing. A person is said to instigate another when he goads, provokes, incites, urges forward or encourage another to commit a crime."
16. In the light of the aforesaid case law, the question which arises for determination in the present case is whether there is any evidence on record to establish that the accused had instigated the deceased [ENTITY] to commit suicide.
17. As is borne out from going through the aforesaid case law, in order to establish the allegations of offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] it was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was instigated by the accused persons to commit suicide or the accused persons while acting in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy instigated the deceased to commit suicide or the accused persons intentionally aided the deceased to commit the said offence.
The case of the prosecution hinges upon the suicide notes Ex.PW6/B, in which the deceased is stated to have spelt out the reasons for taking this extreme step. On perusal of the suicide notes Ex.PW6/B, it is borne out that the deceased has repeatedly stated that he is disturbed and harassed on account of the fact that the accused persons used to threaten him and hold him responsible for the fact that [ENTITY] again fixed the board of '[ENTITY] Properties' outside his shop after the board of '[ENTITY] Properties and Makan & Co.' was broken. The deceased has repeatedly also stated in the said suicide note Ex.PW6/B that he is under depression as the accused persons have harmed his reputation as they were annoyed with him on account of removal of their name from the board fixed in front of '[ENTITY] Properties'.
18. The prosecution relied upon the statement of wife of the deceased i.e. Smt.[ENTITY] PW6 who has also deposed that the accused persons used to do fake business of property dealing in the name of her deceased husband and her husband used to remain disturbed due to this reason. She further deposed that the board of '[ENTITY] and Makan Company' was broken accidently which was again fixed by [ENTITY] in the name of '[ENTITY] Properties' outside the shop and that the accused persons were threatening her husband for this reason. PW6 [ENTITY] further stated that her husband used to remain very tense and disturbed because of the threatening and harassment at the hands of the accused persons and due to this fact, he committed suicide.
19. It was pointed out by learned defence counsel that the aforesaid contentions of PW6 have not been substantiated on record by any evidence whatsoever. My attention was drawn to the cross examination of PW6, wherein she has stated that she cannot give details of any specific transaction being fake, which her deceased husband might have talked to her about. She also stated in her cross examination that the deceased never gave any complaint against the accused persons to any authority either to the Market Secretary or President. Learned defence counsel rather contended that the contents of the suicide notes Ex.PW6/B are merely a figment of the imagination of the deceased who was admittedly under depression and was mentally disturbed.
20. In support of the arguments that the deceased was mentally disturbed, reliance was placed upon the depositions of DW1 & DW2, besides the crossexamination of prosecution's own witness viz., PW9 [ENTITY]. PW9 admitted in his crossexamination that the deceased was mentally disturbed and used to keep roaming around in the streets as a wayward. He stated that he was aware of this fact as he was a Beat Head constable of that area and had seen the deceased and also heard about him.
21. I have considered the aforesaid submissions in the light of the depositions of the witnesses examined on record and have also gone through the testimony of PW [ENTITY] with whom the deceased was working. A bare perusal of his deposition would reveal that he failed to support the case of the prosecution and rather deposed that the mental status of the deceased was not good and he used to roam on the roads, abusing people and was unhappy with everyone.
22. Sh.[ENTITY] PW4 with whom the deceased had also worked till 2005 also admitted in his crossexamination that the deceased [ENTITY] used to keep on mumbling and roaming around the locality aimlessly like a wayward. He also admitted that he was not having good relations with his wife and it is for this reason she also used not to stay with him. He further admitted that the deceased used to remain in depression.
23. From the deposition of the aforesaid public witnesses, I find that the fact that the deceased was in a state of depression and was in a disturbed state of mind has been duly substantiated on record. The prosecution witnesses have themselves admitted in their cross examination that the deceased was mentally disturbed and used to roam around the locality mumbling himself. The defence witnesses have also deposed to the similar effect. I am also inclined to accept the submissions of learned defence counsel that a bare perusal of the suicide notes Ex.PW6/B indicate the disturbed state of mind of the deceased as he has written the same things over and over again. He has himself written in the suicide notes Ex.PW6/B that he was in a state of depression and has attributed the reason thereof to the activities of the accused. He alleged that the accused blamed him for removal of their board of name from outside the shop of [ENTITY], although, [ENTITY] PW5 has totally remained silent to this effect. The wife of the deceased PW6 [ENTITY] also admitted in her cross examination that although the deceased had told her of the depression on account of harassment at the hands of the accused persons, yet he never took the steps for making of any complaint to any Authority or to the Market Secretary or President regarding the alleged harassment at the hands of the accused persons.
24. In the light of the aforesaid, the allegations contained in the suicide notes thus cannot be accepted as a gospel truth in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the fact that any accused person in fact instigated the deceased to the extent that it lead him to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
25. On the basis of the evidence on record in toto, I am thus of the considered opinion that essential ingredients necessary for proving the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] do not stand proved on record. The alleged instigation of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons has not been established by way of deposition of prosecution witnesses including PW6 [ENTITY]. Further, there is no material on record to show that the accused persons were either threatening or harassing the deceased to such an extent that he was compelled to put an end to his life by electrocuting himself. Thus, although the demise of deceased [ENTITY] by way of self electrocution has been proved on record and the suicide notes written by him in his hand and signed by him have also been proved on record by the prosecution, yet in absence of any evidence to prove that the deceased committed suicide on account of any instigation at the hands of the accused, I am of the view that the accused cannot be convicted for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT].
26. Similarly, I find that the Prosecution, but for the bald testimony of PW6 [ENTITY], failed to bring on record any evidence whatsoever, to prove that the deceased was threatened by the accused persons. In absence of any cogent evidence to this effect, I find myself inclined to hold that the charge for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] also does not stand proved against the accused persons.
27. Consequently, all the three accused persons viz., [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court on 18.02.12 ([ENTITY]) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.