IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Revision No.1782 of 2010. Date of Decision: 5.7.2011. Dayanand Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Bipin Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate, for respondent No.2. NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision Nos.1782 of 2010 and Criminal Revision No. 2271 of 2010 filed by complainant and the State of Haryana respectively against the order dated May 11th, 2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat vide which application filed by Daya Nand-complainant under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning Rakesh Bura as an additional accused in case bearing First Information Report No.424 dated May 15th, 2009 under Sections 109, 294, 306, 341, 509/120-B Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), Police Station City Panipat was dismissed. 2. On October 1st, 1997, Neelam daughter of Daya Nand-complainant was appointed as Lecturer of English in Government Senior Secondary School, Siwah, District Panipat. She remained posted there upto November 10th, 2007. On November 10th, 2007, she was transferred to Tehsil Camp School, Panipat, where Rakesh Bura was the Principal. On January 24th, 2009, she was transferred from the said school as she was being harassed by her colleague Rajinder Kumar and Rakesh Bura. She died on February 11th, 2009. Postmortem examination was not conducted on her dead body. On May 15th, 2009, the complainant lodged complaint with the Police of Police Station City Panipat. First Information Report (Annexure P-1) was registered against Rakesh Bura and Rajinder Kumar. The matter was investigated by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat and it was found that Rakesh Bura did not abet the commission of suicide. Accordingly, he was not challaned. During trial, complainant appeared as witness (PW-3) and deposed that in the year 2008, Rakesh Bura and Rajinder Kumar–accused started harassing his daughter unnecessarily, physically, sexually, socially and emotionally. She moved application against them but no action was taken. About the harassment, she did not disclose to him rather she disclosed it to her mother Laxmi Devi. She was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Siwah, District Panipat to Tehsil Camp School, Panipat on January 24th, 2009 and she felt humiliation at the hands of Rakesh Bura. She got mentally depressed and on account of that, she committed suicide on February 11th, 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State counsel have urged that a perusal of the statement of complainant shows that offence under Section 306 IPC was also committed by Rakesh Bura because he abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that prior to her death, Neelam had written letters (Annexures P-12 & P-13) to the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panipat respectively complaining against the misbehaviour of Rajinder Kumar. She has not stated even a word in these letters against Rakesh Bura. However, in another letter (Annexure P-14) she complained to the District Education Officer, Panipat against Rajinder Kumar stating that Principal also did not try to stop Rajinder Kumar from doing such acts. Reference to these letters was particularly made by learned counsel for the petitioner and State counsel to say that the fact that Rakesh Bura did not stop Rajinder Kumar from doing such acts shows that by his illegal omission, he was aiding or abetted commission of suicide. 5. On the other hand, counsel for Rakesh Bura has stated that the deceased died a natural death as is evident from the affidavit (Annexure P17) filed by the complainant that his daughter died a natural death on February 11th, 2009 and it shows that she did not commit suicide. 6. It is settled law that for conviction of a person under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide and 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. 7. The basic requirement for invoking Section 319 Cr.PC is that it must appear to the court from the evidence in any inquiry or trial that some other person, who is not arraigned as an accused, has committed an offence for which that person could be tried together with the accused already before the court. A small suspicion or some doubt would not suffice. The court must have reasonable satisfaction from the evidence collected that firstly the other person has committed an offence and that for such offence the other person could be tried along with the accused. 8. The provisions of section 319 Cr.PC confer a discretion on the court and the discretionary power has to be exercised in order to achieve criminal justice. A person is not to be summoned as an additional accused to stand trial with others merely for the asking. A judicial exercise would be called for and conspectus of the case, the stage at which the trial has reached, the quantum of evidence collected shall have to be considered and it is also to be remembered that it is not compelling duty on the court to proceed against the person concerned. More often such persons are sought to be summoned for being proceeded against as an accused by the complainant parties who were found innocent by the investigating agency and were not challaned. While the final report submitted by the Police is not binding on the court, it is not a meaningless thing either. The provision (319 Cr.PC) is rather an extraordinary power conferred on the court and has to be used sparingly only when compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. 9. As has been observed earlier the postmortem examination was not conducted on the dead body of deceased, so, on the statement of complainant alone, it is not possible to say whether she committed suicide or died a natural death particularly in view of the affidavit of Daya Nand (Annexure R-19) admitting that his daughter died a natural death. In her letters (Annexures P-12 and P- 13) she did not complain against the mis-behaviour of Rakesh Bura. A Mere mention in the letter (Annexure P-15) that Rakesh Bura did not stop Rajinder Kumar from misbehaving with the deceased, does not constitute abetment to suicide, if at all she committed suicide. The matter was also investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he found Rakesh Bura to be innocent. 10. It is gratifying to note that learned Additional Sessions Judge was very much alive to the proposition of law and he did not act in a mechanical or perfunctory manner. There was proper application of mind and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was rightly rejected. 11. There is no scope for interference so, the petition is dismissed. 12. It is recorded for the sake of clarity that observations made in this order shall not be construed as opinion on merits by the trial Court while deciding the case of Rajinder Kumar. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 5.07.2011. Ishwar/SN Whether refer to reporter: Yes/No