[CASE NUMBER] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. [CASE NUMBER] (O&M) [ENTITY] Petitioner versus [ENTITY] Respondents 2. [CASE NUMBER] (O&M) [ENTITY] and others Petitioner versus [ENTITY] Respondents Date of decision : 31.08.2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner (s) Ms. [ENTITY], AAG, Punjab 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes [ENTITY] , J.
This order of mine shall dispose of [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER] as they are arising out of the same F.I.R bearing No. 213 dated 20.09.2010 u/[SECTION] [ACT], registered at Police Station Maqsudan, Jalandhar. However, the facts are being taken from [CASE NUMBER].
The present criminal revision petition is against the order dated 10.06.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar whereby charges have been framed under [SECTION] [ACT] against the petitioners.
Brief facts of the case are that the above said F.I.R was registered on the suicide note written by [ENTITY] alleging therein that [ENTITY] was not having cordial relations with his wife [ENTITY], [ENTITY] (father-in-law), [ENTITY] (sister-in-law) and [ENTITY] (brother-in- law). It is alleged that [ENTITY] was threatening [ENTITY] and due to that he felt helpless. Before committing suicide, [ENTITY] had applied to go to Saudi Arab but the passport authorities at Jalanhdar did not give him passport. He used to go to passport officer everyday as they used to call him but did not tell him anything. After being harassed by the persons of passport office, he committed suicide. He met the officer of passport officer but he too did not gave him any answer. The investigation was carried out by ASI [ENTITY] (P-2) and as per report under Section of the [ACT] (for short 'the Code'), it was submitted that ASI [ENTITY] reached the spot on receiving an information that [ENTITY] is hanging from the ceiling fan with the "chunni" in his room. Thereafter, ASI [ENTITY] along with [PRECEDENT] reached the spot and found a suicide note of [ENTITY] near the bed. Thereafter, the suicide note of the deceased along with other papers of writings diary and signatures were taken in a sealed envelope and the same was submitted to FSL Chandigarh. Subsequently, [ENTITY] (wife of the deceased) , [ENTITY] (father-in-law), [ENTITY] (sister-in-law) and [ENTITY] (brother-in-law) were arrested after making them join the investigation. A challan was presented on 14.02.2011. Statement of [ENTITY] (father of deceased) was also recorded (P-3) who stated that [ENTITY] was staying with his wife and children separately. He further stated that [ENTITY] (wife of [ENTITY]) had gone to her parental house from quite some time. On 19.09.2010, [ENTITY] was alone in the house and told his father that his in-laws family were harassing him lot in which his wife, brother-in-law and his wife, father- in-law were included. They were compelling him to die. [ENTITY] had earlier quarreled with his wife and her in-laws used to call him with bad names threaten him to kill. Many times the compromise was effected, [ENTITY] used to stay with her in-laws family and many a times used to stay in her parental house. On 20.09.2010, [ENTITY] did not wake up and his Son [ENTITY] told him that he called up many times on his phone but [ENTITY] did not wake up. Thereafter, they opened the door from behind and found the dead body of [ENTITY] was hanging with the fan besides his bed aside. [ENTITY] of the village was then called who came to the spot and called the police. The police released the dead body of [ENTITY] from the fan and recovered a notice hand written by [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] was not having cordial relations with his wife [ENTITY], [ENTITY] (father-in-law), [ENTITY] (sister-in-law) and [ENTITY] (brother-in-law) due to which he committed suicide.
Statement of [ENTITY], [ENTITY] was also recorded u/[SECTION] of the Code. As per his statement, he stated that on a mobile call from [ENTITY] that the dead body of [ENTITY] was hanging from the spot, he reached the spot and told the police about the death of [ENTITY]. After some time police reached the spot and released the dead body from the fan in his presence and in the presence of [ENTITY]. Besides the bed was the suicide note hand written and upon search of the room a diary, walkman and some other written papers were recovered by the police in front of him. Thereafter, the police sent the body for post mortem in Civil Hospital. He further stated that [ENTITY] was having un-cordial relations with his in-laws even earlier and once or twice the compromise had happened in his presence. [ENTITY] was quite unhappy with his in-laws family as they used to harass him. [ENTITY] has committed suicide after being fed up from his in-laws family.
Vide order dated 10.06.2011, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has framed the charges under [SECTION] [ACT] against wife [ENTITY], [ENTITY] (father-in-law), [ENTITY] (sister-in-law) and [ENTITY] (brother-in-law).
Learned counsel for the petitioners sought quashing of this order on the ground that as per the suicide note there are no direct allegations that the petitioners had instigated or abetted [ENTITY] to commit suicide. The allegations against the in-laws family of [ENTITY] are general in nature. It has further been argued by learned counsel that a specific role has been attributed to the Passport authority who had not issued him passport despite the fact that he had visited the passport authorities many times. Reference has been made to the harassment caused by the passport office. From the reading of the suicide note, one thing is clear that [ENTITY] did not have cordial relations with his in-laws family but the contents of the suicide note did not make out a case of abetment as contemplated under [SECTION] [ACT] to the extent that the in-laws had instigated [ENTITY] to commit suicide. A close reading of the suicide note on the other hand makes reference to the fact that he had applied for the passport to go to Saudi Arab and the authority did not give him passport. He had visited the passport everyday and felt harassed by the officers of the passport office. The relationship between [ENTITY] with his in-laws family was not cordial but it was not the immediate cause for [ENTITY] to commit suicide. It is nowhere mentioned in the suicide note of [ENTITY] that his in laws family had instigated him or threatened him before he committed suicide on 20.09.2010. As per the statement given by the father of [ENTITY], it has been submitted that [ENTITY] (wife of [ENTITY]) had gone to her parental house for quite some time and on the date [ENTITY] committed suicide, he was alone in the house since his wife along with children were not present. The allegation that her in-laws family had instigated [ENTITY] before he committed suicide, so as to make out an offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. As far as the [ENTITY] is concerned since he was not residing or he had not visited the deceased much before he committed suicide, the allegations that he had abetted him to commit suicide did not carry any weight.
In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to a judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of [ENTITY] vs. State of Haryana 2008 AIR SCW 3202 wherein the Supreme court while examining the facts of the case where the husband had been facing charge under [SECTION] [ACT] as his wife had committed suicide and as per her suicide notice, she described her husband as sexual pervert. It was stated that the husband was impotent and was trying to defame her. She had clearly mentioned that she wanted to end his life. She further stated in her suicide note that she desires to kill the husband along with his two children. The details of the suicide note reads as under:-
"I desired to kill you alongwith us but no, if you have any sense of shame you will die as a result of the sequence of events. But it do not make any difference for shameless person because these abuses will sound as correct if you realize your capacity. You have not spent even eight days in a period of eight years in peace with me. You yourself are responsible for death of these children. Flowers had been prayed for from the deities of your family regarding whom you disclosed "they are not mine they are with me from my friend. (girl friend) on, you, the condemned the day children will be born as a result of co-habitation of a woman with woman, a woman will stop giving birth to man like you."
Learned has referred to the case of [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P (1995 AIR SCW 4570) wherein it has been held that mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough to come to a conclusion that there was abetment of suicide to make out an offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. The order of the High Court convicted the accused was set aside as the ingredients of [SECTION] [ACT] have not been established.
Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of [ENTITY] vs. State represented by the [PRECEDENT] wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine a case where High Court had declined to quash the proceedings under [SECTION] [ACT]. The wife had committed a suicide. She alleged that she had been asked to bring a car from her family members. She along with her children were deprived to use the family car of the in-laws family to go to a theme park. She was denied to use of the said family car on 14.01.2005 and she committed suicide on 18.01.2005. It was held that there was no proximate link between the incident of 14.01.2005 when the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18.01.2005. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in out day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. The appellants are not even remotely connected with the offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the law laid down in [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT], The aforesaid issue has been dealt by the recent judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of [PRECEDENT], [PRECEDENT] and State of A.P vs. Gourishetty Mahesh, 2010 1 11 SCC 226 where Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that if the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, the High Court by exercising the power under [SECTION] of the Court can quash the proceedings. In the case of [ENTITY] (supra) where the deceased wife had been denied to use the family care and was told to bring a car from his family by her in-laws, no offence under [SECTION] [ACT] was made out. The deceased treated was a hypersensitive person and the appellants were not found remotely connected with the offence for which they have been charged to face the trial. The incident had taken place on 14.01.2005 and she had committed suicide on 18.01.2005. The charges framed against the appellants under [SECTION] [ACT] were quashed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
In [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P., 2002 5 SCC 371, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that a quarrel had taken place between appellant and deceased in which appellant was said to have told the decease to "go and die". Deceased was found dead two days later. It was held that suicide was not proximate to the quarrel though the deceased was named in the suicide note. Hence suicide was not the direct result of the quarrel when the appellant used abusive language and told the deceased to go and die. Even though the appellant was named specifically in the suicide note, the proceedings under [SECTION] [ACT] were quashed. On the same issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has passed another judgment in a case of [ENTITY] vs. Kartar Singh and others, 2007 11 SCC 205 wherein it has been held that mere harassment of wife by her husband or in-laws, due to some dispute and differences without anything more, pursuant to which if wife commits suicide, it will not attract [SECTION] [ACT].
In a case of [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine a case under [SECTION] [ACT] where deceased was a University student. A fellow student filed a complaint against the deceased that deceased had stolen his mobile telephone. Enquiry was entrusted to the accused who was a Security Officer. Deceased committed suicide and charge against accused that deceased committed suicide due to harassment caused by the accused. Charges were quashed and it was held that conviction merely on basis of allegation of harassment of deceased is unsustainable in law.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand has argued that after framing of the charge , the petitioners are at liberty to take all the pleas before the trial Court. A suicide note clearly states that he was constantly harassed by her in-laws family . He had even applied for the passport to go to Saudi Arab. Due to his unhappy family life, he had committed suicide. Statement of father of the deceased as well as of [ENTITY] of the village has also been recorded. Both in their statements have submitted that [ENTITY] (deceased) has uncordial relations with his in-laws family. The compromise was also effected in the presence of [ENTITY] but he was quite unhappy with his in-laws family as they used to harass him.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the record.
`Abetment of a thing' has been defined under [SECTION] of the Code, which reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with [SECTION] reads as under:-
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
In the facts of the present case, as per the suicide note, the deceased was having uncordial relations with his in-laws family. He felt harassed and in that background, he had applied for the passport to go to Saudi Arab. As per explanation 2 of [SECTION], the Court has to examine before he committed suicide nothing was done by the accused nor facilitate the commission of that act or said something to him. Since the relations were not cordial with his in-laws family as per the suicide note, it had to be a case of committing an act jointly by her wife and her in-laws family members. As per the statement given by [ENTITY], the wife of deceased [ENTITY] was staying in her parental house for quite sometime. On the date of committing suicide on 20.09.2010, [ENTITY] was alone at home. This fact has been stated by [ENTITY] of the village in his statement. [ENTITY] was not aware of the fact that he had approached the passport office for issuance of passport and was being harassed by the passport office. As per the statement given by ASI [ENTITY], Investigating Officer, he stated that he investigated from the passport office and they too did not given him any answer. In cross examination while appearing as P.W.4, he stated that after going through the suicide note, no fault was found by him of any of the employee of the Passport Office. He has further submitted that parents of the deceased had been giving complaint against deceased that he was very violent and had been hitting them. However, he did not investigate as to whether with home, deceased had a talk on telephone prior to his death.
As per [SECTION] [ACT], there is no such Act which instigated him to commit suicide. Had there been any instigation before he committed suicide by the in-laws family, the circumstances could have been different. Apart from being harassed by her in-laws family, the deceased in his suicide note has referred to the harassment caused by the officer of the passport office. The Investigation carried out by the Police with the passport office is that no one in that office was responsible and therefore no fault with the investigation can be found.
In [ENTITY] case (supra), the Supreme Court has held abetment involves mental process of instigating, intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There should be a clear mens rea to commit offence under [SECTION] [ACT]. It requires commission of direct or active act by accused which lead deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and such act must be intended to push victim into a position that he commits suicide.
In [ENTITY]'s case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has examined a suicide note left by the deceased-wife where she had poisoned her two children and thereafter committed suicide levelling allegation against her husband that her husband is a sexual pervert. Reference has been made to a judgment of [ENTITY]'s case (supra). In paragraph 10 of the judgment, while examining [SECTION] [ACT], it has been held as under:-
10. [SECTION] [ACT] defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of [SECTION]. [SECTION] provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in [SECTION] means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
The conviction was set aside by holding that the husband had not committed an offence under [SECTION] [ACT] and had not instigated his wife to commit a suicide as per [SECTION] [ACT].
In [ENTITY]'s case (supra), it was a case where the appellant (brother-in-law) during quarrel had told deceased (sister's husband) to go and die, it was held that the suicide was not a direct result of that quarrel despite the fact that the accused had harassed and used abusive language and told the deceased to go and die. In this case, the appellant was charged with having abetted commission of suicide by his brother-in-law (sister's husband). The prosecution story was that there were strained relations between the deceased and his wife who at the material time was staying with the appellant. On 25.07.1998, the deceased went to the appellant to bring back his wife. There was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased who came back alone. The deceased told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant had threatened and abused him by using filthy words. On 27.07.1998, the deceased was found dead. The deceased also left a suicide note which showed his disturbed state of mind but otherwise he blamed the appellant for suicide. The appellant's proceeding for quashing of charge sheet was dismissed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal of the appellant.
In [ENTITY] case (supra), it has been held that mere harassment of wife by her husband or in-laws, due to dispute and differences without anything more, pursuant to which if wife commits suicide, it will not attract [SECTION] [ACT]. In this case, the High Court had quashed the charge sheet under [SECTION] [ACT] and had remanded the case back to the trial Court to reframe the charge under [SECTION] [ACT]. In paragraph 15 and 16, it has been held as under:-
"15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract [SECTION] [ACT] read with [SECTION] [ACT].
16. However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract [SECTION] read with [SECTION] [ACT], if the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High Court. We, however, make it clear that if the suicide was due to demand of dowry soon before her death then [SECTION] [ACT] may be attracted, whether it is a case of homicide or suicide. Vide Kans Raj vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. 2000(5) SCC 207, Satvir Singh & Ors. vs. [ENTITY] & Anr. 2001(8) SCC 633, [PRECEDENT]".
While dismissing the appeal filed by the father of the deceased has observed that dowry demand soon before death of wife would attract [SECTION] irrespective of whether death was homicidal or suicidal. Since no charge under [SECTION] [ACT] had been framed, the accused cannot be convicted under that provision.
In [PRECEDENT], Hon'ble the Supreme Court had an occasion to examine a case under [SECTION] [ACT] where deceased was a University student. A fellow student filed a complaint against the deceased that deceased had stolen his mobile telephone. Enquiry was entrusted to the accused who was a Security Officer. Deceased committed suicide and charge against accused that deceased committed suicide due to harassment caused by the accused. In paragraph 28, it has been held as under:-
"Abetment involves a 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] [ACT] 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."
In the facts of the present case, the wife of the deceased [ENTITY] had gone to her parental house 15 days prior to the date of the suicide of her husband. As per statement of father of the deceased, his son was frustrated and wanted to go to Saudi Arab and was feeling harassed by the Passport office who had not issued him his passport.
ASI [ENTITY] while appearing as P.W.4 has stated that after going through the suicide note, no fault was found by him of any of the employee of the Passport Office. He has further submitted that parents of the deceased had been giving complaint against deceased that he was very violent and had been hitting them. No enquiry was conducted on the said complaints.
From the reading of suicide note, reference has been made to the officer of the Passport office who had not issued him passport office. He had stated about his uncordial relations with his in- laws family but that has not instigated him to commit suicidal as his wife was not staying with him for the last 15 days. There was no instigation before he committed suicide which can be attributed to the present petitioners so as to frame a charge under [SECTION] [ACT]. The deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day to day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from each person to the other. He is responsible for his own death.
In the light of the settled legal position, the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the petitioners. The order of framing charge under [SECTION] [ACT] against the petitioners is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be a travesty of justice to compel the petitioners to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under [SECTION] [ACT] against the petitioners is quashed and all the proceeding pending against them are also set aside.
As a result, the present petitions are allowed and impugned order of framing charge dated 10.06.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar is set aside.
([ENTITY]) JUDGE 31.08.2012 [ENTITY]