Crl.Rev.No.342 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.342 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 Surinder Kumar Dheer .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral Though there is a delay of 24 days in the filing of the revision, the petitioner has been heard on merits. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, acquitting the respondents no.2 and 3 of a charge of abetment of suicide. Respondents no.2 and 3 were arraigned as accused for abetment of suicide of Rajat Dheer, son in law of respondent no.2 and husband of respondent no.3, but were acquitted of these charges. Anju Bala respondent no.3 and the deceased were married on 25.2.2005. Their matrimonial life was wrecked by constant bickerings and disputes. As per the allegations, Amar Nath (respondent no.2), father-in- law of the deceased came to his daughter's house 8-10 days prior to the Crl.Rev.No.342 of 2009 2 fateful day and while leaving threatened the complainant and the deceased that he would get them arrested in an income tax raid. Respondent no.2 was posted as an Income Tax Commissioner. It is further alleged that Anju Bala continued to quarrel with the deceased on trivial matters. At 9 PM, on the fateful day, the father of the deceased, while out of station, received a telephone call informing him that his son was admitted to a hospital as he had consumed poison. The complainant's son passed away without regaining conscious. As the complainant alleged that Rajat Dheer was poisoned by his wife, a FIR came to be lodged. After investigation, a final report was filed and Respondents no.2 and 3 were charged for commission of offences under Section 306/34 IPC. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses including the complainant and the neighbours of the complainant. Upon a considered appraisal of the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondents by holding that there was no evidence on record to suggest abetment of suicide. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has erroneously acquitted the accused. The prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to establish strained matrimonial relations, threats meted out to the deceased by the accused, particularly on the fateful night. The neighbours have deposed about a serious dispute between the deceased and his wife. The learned trial Court has discarded their depositions on erroneous grounds. As the deceased consumed poison behind closed doors, the prosecution could not be expected to produce incontrovertible evidence about the incident and, therefore, the court below should have drawn an inference against the accused. Crl.Rev.No.342 of 2009 3 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgement and express my inability to accept the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner or to reverse the judgement passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. In order to establish an offence of abetment of suicide, an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the ingredients of abetment as set out under Section 107 IPC, which reads as follows :- “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 place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” The onus to bring home the guilt for abetment of suicide lies upon the prosecution which is required to establish that the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The word instigate inheres such an act or acts as would provoke, incite, urge or bring about by persuasion the doing of a thing prohibited by law. The learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record and has thereafter recorded a positive finding that the prosecution has failed to establish by cogent and clear evidence that respondents no.2 and 3 instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The trial court placed reliance upon the statement of Crl.Rev.No.342 of 2009 4 respondent no.3, recorded in the cross case, where she narrated the entire incident by deposing that after the deceased's father and others left for Kasauli, the deceased began quarreling with her. He packed her luggage and tried to push her out of the house and thereafter went into his room and consumed poison. The neighbours produced in support of the charge have been rightly disbelieved, as they are not privy to and could not depose as to the particulars of the instigation or depose about facts, as would be sufficient to infer the abetment of suicide. In view of the failure of the prosecution to establish its case, the learned trial court rightly acquitted respondents no.2 and 3. Dismissed. 23.3.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE