Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 Date of Decision:March 02, 2009 Smt. Battan Devi ---Petitioner versus Dinesh Kumar and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. R.D.Yadav,Advocate, for the petitioner `None for respondents No. 1 and 2 Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana for respondent No. 3 *** SABINA, J. Dinesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar-respondents No. 1 and 2 were tried for an offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian penal Code (hereinafter referred to As “IPC”) in FIR No. 139 dated 18.8.2007 registered at Police Station GRP, Rewari. Vide judgment dated 15.9.2008, Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari acquitted respondents No. 1 and 2 of the charge framed against them. Hence, the present revision petition by the complainant-Battan Devi. Prosecution case, as notice by the trial court in para 1 of its Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 {2} judgment in brief is as under:- “Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.8.2007, Mr. Rajender Singh, Deputy Station Superintendent, North West Railways, Rewari forwarded a written memo in Police Station GRP, Rewari stating therein that a man has been crushed under train No. 2462 in between Bawal and Kamawas. On this information, ASI Jaipal Singh along with other police officials reached at the site. The dead body of the deceased was identified as Dharambir s/o Sh. Sant Raj. The place of occurrence was got photographed and the inquest proceedings were carried out. The complainant party had no clue. The dead body was sent to CHC, Bawal for post mortem examination. On 18.8.2007, ASI Jaipal Singh reached in village Asalwas where the wife of deceased namely Smt. Battan Devi lodged a complaint alleging therein that she was got married with Dharambir in the year 2000 and is having two children. Her husband was doing the job of selling the milk. He used to collect the milk from the Village like Ram Nagar etc. and used to supply the milk at sweet shops of Ashok Kumar and Dinesh Kumar. On 13.8.2007, he had gone to supply the milk at Bawal as usual. At about 9.30 P.M., he returned back at his residence and went asleep. In the mid night, he received a telephonic call. The names of Ashok and Dinesh were referred. After this, he made a telephonic call to Ashok. After some time, her husband told that he has received Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 {3} a telephonic call from the sweet shop and is going to Bawal. The father-in-law of complainant Sant Raj also listen the conversation and asked Dharambir not to go to Bawal late in the night. But Dharambir did not agree and he told that he is going to meet Ashok and Dinesh. After this, he along with a mobile phone and a drum of milk left his residence. Next day i.e. on 14.8.2007, he did not return back. His mobile phone was found switched off. In the after noon, a police constable appeared at their residence and told the registration number of the motor cycle. Karambir and Har Gyan were taken to railway line and found the dead body of Dharambir. The Drum of milk as well as mobile phone was found missing. After that they contacted the persons from whom he used to collect the milk in the morning and they told that Dharambir has not come present6 today. Later on, it was disclosed that on 13.8.2007, at about 10-00 p.m., Dharambir had consumed the liquor with Dinesh, Mahesh, Suresh Sharma, Suresh Arora and Shyam Sunder alias Shamu. He had an altercation with Dinesh. Dharambir gave a slap on Dinesh. The brother-in-law of Dinesh namely Mahesh gave the blows on the person of Dharambir. After this, Dinesh and Mahesh gave the blows on the person of Dharambir. Suresh Sharma, Suresh Arora and Shamu intervened. In the night at about 2.30 A.M. Dharambir re-appeared at the shop of Suresh Sharma. Shamu was sleeping in his godown. Dharambir(deceased) started saying that he will eliminate Dinesh and Mahesh, otherwise he will not Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 {4} show his face. One person belonging to Saini community had beaten a Gujar. After this, Dharambir threw away his drum of milk and mobile phone and went away on his motor cycle. She had the suspicion that her husband had not died accidentally but accused Dinesh, Ashok and his colleagues are having hands in the murder of Dharambir. After committing the murder, the accused had thrown the dead body of Dharambir on the railway track. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was registered. On 19.8.2007, the investigation was handed over to the SHO, GRP, Rewari and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. During the investigations, it came to notice that Dharambir had a dispute with the accused and he was beaten up. He felt ashamed because a person belonging to Saini community was beaten by Gujjars. Dharambir had committed suicide on the abetment of the accused. After completion of all the formalities, the accused were challaned by Satpal, Inspector, then Station House Officer, Police Station GRP, Rewari under Sections 306/34IPC, vide his report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court had erred in acquitting respondents No. 1 and 2 of the charge framed against them although the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court reveals that the material/independent witness, PW-4- Shyam Sunder, PW-5-Shankar Lal, Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 {5} PW-6-Santu Ram, PW-18-Vijay Kaushik did not support the prosecution case. Occurrence had allegedly taken place in the night of 13.8.2007 whereas FIR was lodged on 18.8.2007. Hence, there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. As per PW-3, Battan, PW-19 Har Gyan, PW-21, Sant Raj, deceased Dharambir had some money dispute with respondents No. 1 and 2 and later they came to know that Dharambir had been murdered by Ashok, Dinesh Suresh and Mahesh. Thereafter, they had put the dead body on the railway track in order to destroy the evidence. However, the said witnesses could not tell the source from where they had gathered the knowledge that Dharambir had been murdered by the said persons. Hence, there was no direct evidence to convict respondents No. 1 and 2 of the charge framed against them. As per medical evidence the death of deceased was due to crush injuries and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. The learned trial court further observed that it is a case of suicide and no motive had been brought on record which would have induced respondents No. 1 and 2 to abet the commission of suicide by deceased Dharambir. Learned trial court further observed that prosecution had failed to establish that Dharambir had to pay any debt or any sum was demanded by him from respondents No. 1 and 2. At the time of inquest report, none of the family members of the deceased complained of abetting, mal- treatment or harassment caused by respondents No. 1 and 2. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh and another v. State of M.P. 1995 AIR SCW 4570 that mere allegation of harassment made by deceased in her dying declaration against Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 {6} the accused was not sufficient to constitute the offence. The said view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 810. As per Section 306 IPC provision for abetment of suicide reads as under:- “Abetment of suicide:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” As per Section 107 IPC abetment of a thing has been defined as under: “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.” Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment then the offender, who is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. The offence for abetment, therefore, is normally linked with the proved offence.” Crl. Revision No. 2463 of 2008 {7} When factual matrix of this case is examined, it is clear that learned trial court has rightly acquitted respondents No. 1 and 2 of the charge framed against them. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 02, 2009 PARAMJIT