BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) CRIMINAL APPEAL N0^0 /2005 APPELLANTS 'IN JAIL .^4. 'A ei/ Jugam @ Jugal Ram, S/o.Dukhit Ram Verma, Aged about 23 years. Smt. Heera Bai, W/o.Dageshwar Prasad, Aged about 29 years. Smt. Ram Bai, Widow of Dukhit Ram, Aged about 48 years. All Resident of Damanbod, P.S. Bhatapara-Village, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Bhatapara-Village, District Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL U/S. 374(21 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE •^UL-9^;,^ "'" ^'- to.oi^ ^^\ / ^Ao^ ^^^ RESPONDENTS F ^--- ^t^^s^ :1 is v ^; HI6H COURT OF CHHATTES6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr. Appeat No.770/2005 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. JU6AM @ JU6AL MM A OTHERS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTIS6ARH Post for Orders h^A-i , <f Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge 9^' N hNlrtK" HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr. ADpeal No.770/2005 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. JU6AM @ JU6AL RAM A OTHERS \te. STATE OF CHHATTIS6ARH PRESENT: - Shri A^iok Soni, counsel for tiie appellants. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, ^ovt. Advocate for the State. JUD6MENT (Delivered on Z@ -03-2006) Jhis oppeal is directed against the judgment dated 25-08-2005 delivered by EEnd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar in Sessions Case No.95/2005 whereby the cxppellants were convicted under Section-306 read with Section-34 of IPC oind were sentenced to under90 ri9orous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of paiyment of fine to under9o additional ri9orous imprisonment for 6 months. 2. It is not di^)uted that the appellant No.3 Smt. ftam Qai is the mother and the oppellouit No.2 Smt. Heera Bai is the sister-in-bw of the appellant No<l, 3. •t ^N' Briefly stated 1+ie prosecution story is -Hiat Rambati Bai wos in love with the appellcmt No.l Jugam. Although, she was married to one Bhuwaai of Village-Parsada/die left him two days after the tnarria9e and returned to her matemal home. After some time, she started living with •1+ie appellant No.l Jugam as his mistress and gave birth to a doughter, Since, the cppellcmt Jugam had kept Rambati wil+iout marryin9 her, the oppellant No.2 & 3 used to harcxss and instigate her to leave the house. On 31-12-2004, a quarrel ensued between Rambati cnd the cppellont No. 2 & 3 upon brooming of the Courtyard. Fed up, Rambati went along with her 4 year old daughter near the Dawanbod Railway Crossing ond committ'ed suicide by jumpin9 with her dau9hter in front of the runnin9 train. The driver of the train reported -tiie matter to the Station Master who in tum sent report ExP-7 to the Station House Officer, P.S. Bhatapara ©ramin.The autopsy vide Ex.P-10 was conducted by br. S.K. bhagamwar PW-9. Statement of Maheftar PW-1 and bukalhin Bai PW-2. parents of the deceased under Section-161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded after considerable delay on 31-01-2005. After completion of investigation, the appellants were prosecuted under Section- 306 read with Section-34 of the IPC. The appellants abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence and led no evidence in defence. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The learned trial Judge relying upon the evidence led by the hN—T prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid in para-1. S^ri Ashok Soni, leamed counsel for the appeltants has contended that even if the entire evidence led by the prosecution, wos taken on its face value, the conviction of the oppeltants for offences under Section-306 read with Section-34 IPC could not be sustained under law. He referred to the testimony of Dukalhin PW-2, mother of the deceased in para-8 that the deceased had narrqted her sufferings about 4 months before her death and prior to that the deceased never jnformed about her sufferings. It was also stated therein that the deceased and her husband were hcppity living together and earning their tivelihood. It was argued that there is no evidence to ^iow that soon before the death of Rambati. she was instigated by the appellants for the commission of suicide. Lastfy, it was contended that death of Rambati was merely an accidental desath while crossing 1+ie Railway track. The driver of the train who was the best witness to disctose as to whether death of Rambati cmd her child was accidental or suicidal, was not examined by the prosecution for which am adverse inference ought to have been drawn. 6. On the other hand, Shri Sumesh Bajaj, 6ovt. Advocate while ar9"in9 in support of the impu9ned jud9ment referred to para-3 of the testimony of Balirom Verma PW-3, Patel of Vilkige-Dawanbod where he had stated that the appellant r—-- v ^.-. 7. Jugann had informed him that di^ to quarrel with the appellant No.2 A 3, Rambati went to Railway track with her daughter cxnd committed suicide. My attention was drawn to para-4 of the testimony of Dukalhin PW-2, mother of the cteceased -rtiat ftambati used to tell her that relatives of the cppellant Jugam used to ask her to 901 out of the house or else to commit suicide by getting uncterneath a train or motorcar, It was contended that so far as the appellant No,2 & 3 were concerned, the evidence led by the prosecution established beyond doubt that they insti9ated ond abated the commission of suicide by Rambati. Having considered rival contentions, I have perused the record. The first point which requires consideration is whether death of Rambati was accidental or suicidal. It js true that 1+ie driver of the train under which Rambati 90! killed was the best wilness to depose about the manner in which the incident took place. However, spot map Ex.P-6 prepared by Bhagirothi Sahu PW-6 clearly ^iows that death of Rambati had not occurred while negotiating the Railwoy Crossing but had occurred at quite a distance therefrom. Besides, the testimony of Baliram Verma PW-3 clearly shows that immediately after the occurrence, the dppellant Jugam came to his house dnd told him that Rambati was killed under the train after a quarrel which wisued with the cppellcmt No.2 & 3. These facts clearly go to show that death of Rambati was not accidental but was ajicidal in nature. 8. The only point which now requires consideration is whether the appellants instigated the commission of Suicicte by Rambati, So far as the Gippelloint No.l Ju9am is concemed, 1+iere is absolutely no evidence on record to show that he had, in any manner, instigated or abated the commission of suicide by Rambaiti. So far as the appellant No.2 & 3 are concerned/ the testimony of Mahethxr PW-1 & Dukalhin PW-2 needs scrutiny. No report was lodged by them at any point of time that the appellant No.2 & 3 were subjecting their daughter Rambati to harassment and instigatin9 her to commit suicide, Not only this, ccxse dsary statements of these two material witnes^s were recorded after the expiry of one month i.e. 31-01-2005. 9. ^ In para-12 Mahettar PW-1 has admitted that Rambati was living peacefully and affectionatefy with the oppellant No.l Jugam for about 5 years, although some quarrel used to take ptac«between the two spouses. In paro-2 he stated that the oppelJant No.2 & 3 were treating Rambati with cruelty but did not give <xny specific detdls thereof, 10. Dukalhin PW-2 has also admitl'ed in para-2 that brother of the appellant No.l and the appellant No. 2 & 3 were living separatefy since two years prior to the occurrence. Though, she admitted in para-8 that 4 months prsor to the date of occurrence Rambati had totd her that relatives of Jugam u^d to ask her to get out of the house or else to 9et ||®g||||g||IJf ^ f^ 11. undemeath a train or motorcar, she h<is not chrified who those relatives were. The statement of Dukalhin PW-2 which was heavily relied on by the leamed 6ovt- Advocate does nof show specifically that •Hie appelbnts No.2 & 3 had asked Rambati to get undemeath a train or motorcar. Since, the appellants No.2 & 3 were livin9 separately from appellant No. 1 two years prior to the date of occurrence, it seems highly improbable that on the date of occurrence they would have instigated Rambati to get underneath the train and die. Sohan fol Verma PW-4 has also specifically stated in para-12 that since one year prior to the date of occurrence Rambati was living peacefully with the appellant No.l cnd that all the appellants were Ijying separately with their families. In para- 13 also he has stated that in 1+ie villa9e meetmQ which took ptoce a year prior to the occurrence he hcd only heard about some the quarrel. Thereafter, till the date of occurrence he had not heard of any such thin9. Abetment has been defined in Section-107 IPC which reads as under:- Section-107- Abetment of a liiing- "A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First- Instigates any person to do that thjng; or Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or iltegal omission takes place in pursuonce of that conspircrcy, and in order to the doin9 of that thing; or '^ ^" Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or ille9al omission, the doing of that thin9." 12. Section-109, Indian Penal Code reads as under:- "Whoever abets cuiy offence shatl, if the act abett-ed is commit^ed in consequence of the abetment and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence. ExDtanation: An act or offence is said to be commitl-ed in consequence of abetment, when it is commined in con^quence of the insti9ation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constjtutes the abetment." It is thus clear that for making a person liable for an offence punishable under Section-306 of the Indion Perual Code, the prosecution has to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide. Unless the alleged act of an accused falls under any of the •t+iree cate9orjes of acts, enumerated in Section-107 of Indian Penal Code. the same would not amount to abetment. 13. It \s senled law that for the purposes of sustaining conviction under Section-306 read with Section-34 of IPC, it must be established by the prosecution that the instigation by the appellants, if any, was so djrected, correlated and proximate with the Act of suicide that it com be safely inferred that the deceased committed suicide only on account of such insti9atjon. Mere harassment or indecent behaviour by the familymembers towards the deceoised due to which the deceased abruptly decided to end her life would not constitute the offence under Section-306 of Indian Penal Code. The niere fact that some quarrel used to take place between the deceased and oppellant No.l and that 1+ie appellant No, 2 & 3 while quarrellin9 with the deceased used to ask her to get out the house does not fall under any of the 3 categories enumerated under Section-107 of IPC and would not amount to abatement. 14. The deceased wcis livin9 peocefully in the house of the appellont No4 with her child, The appeltant No,2 w<xs living s^arately with her husband who wos the brother of the oppellcxnt NoA. The appellant No<3 wcxs also living separately with her husband. TTie evidence led by the prosecution also does not show that soon before the occurrence the appellant No.2 & 3 had subjected the deceased to any such cruelty which would amount to instigating her to commit suicide, There is no doubt 1+iat the deceased Rambati <xnd her minor child ended their life in a most tragic manner yet in th& absence of any le9al or cogent evidence to prove insti9ation or abatement by the cppellants for committ'ing suicide by the deceased, the charge under Section-306 read with Section-34 of IPC could not be established by the prosecution a9ainst the appellants- 15. Havin9 thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirely, I am of the considered opinion that conviction of the appellants under Section-306 read with Section-34 of IPC oyid the sentence awarded thereunder are liabte to be set aside. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellants under Section-306 read with Section-34 of IPC and the sentence awarded thereunder are set aside. The appellants are acquined and shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in wiy other case. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the oDDellants. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge