Criminal Revision No.274 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.274 of 2005. Date of Decision : 18.1.2011. Phulla Singh ......Petitioner Versus Gurmit Singh & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This revision has been filed by Phulla Singh- complainant father of Harjit Kaur alias Bholi (deceased) against the judgment dated September 17th, 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur, whereby Gurmit Singh- respondent No.1 was acquitted in case bearing First Information Report No. 20 dated February 5th, 2004 under Section 306 Indian Penal Code registered in Police Station Mallawala, District Ferozepur. 2. Harjit Kaur was married with Gurmit Singh in the year 1993. Out of the wedlock, a son was born. On February 5th, 2004 Phulla Singh (PW-1) along with his brother Sardul Singh and Darshan Singh Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was searching for his daughter because 5/6 days prior to February 5th, 2004 Gurmit Singh- respondent husband of deceased came to the house of Phulla Singh and informed him that whereabouts of his wife viz. daughter of complainant were not known. When they reached in the area of village Doda, he noticed the dead body of his daughter floating in Rajasthan canal. He made statement before the Investigator that his daughter committed suicide because she was maltreated by Gurmit Criminal Revision No.274 of 2005 2 Singh. On his statement, First Information Report was registered against Gurmit Singh. 3. On completion of investigation and other formalities, the accused was arraigned for trial. 4. Prosecution in support of their case examined Phulla Singh (PW-1), Darshan Singh (PW-2), Buta Singh (PW-3), Dr. Sukhpal Singh (PW-4), Jarnail Singh (PW-5) and Bikramjit Singh (PW-6). 5. In his examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Gurmit Singh denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. 6. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge acquitted Gurmit Singh-respondent by observing that Harjit Kaur committed suicide but it was not abetted by Gurmit Singh. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner has urged that Harjit Kaur committed suicide because she was maltreated by the respondent. 8. In view of this, question arises as to whether the accused-respondent abetted the offence which could bring his act under the mischief of Section 306 IPC for which he was charged. 9. The evidence led by the prosecution per se cannot establish offence punishable under Section 306 IPC because it does not establish abetment of suicide. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC. Abetment has been defined under section 107 IPC, that is, a person abets the doing of a thing who, firstly, instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if the act of 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. None of the ingredients of abetment is there in the present case even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is taken at its face value. 10. To support the view, reference can profitably be made to the following authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Criminal Revision No.274 of 2005 3 (i) In Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which read as under : "My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in- law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." After taking into consideration the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 IPC, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that neither of the ingredients of abetment were attracted to the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the accused-appellants under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased was held to be unsustainable. Same view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. 2007(3) RCR (Criminal) 385 relying on Mahendra Singh's case (supra) that merely on the ground of harassment, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. (ii) In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 (4) RCR (Criminal) 537, there was a dispute between Ramesh Kumar-husband and wife. The husband uttered “You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like.” Thereafter, the wife of the accused committed suicide. A three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court commented on the meaning of 'instigation' in paragraph No.20 of the judgment which reads as sunder”- "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his Criminal Revision No.274 of 2005 4 acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation." 11. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the aforesaid authorities makes it clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC 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 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. 12. Viewed from the circumstances, there is not an iota of evidence that Gurmit Singh had at any point of time instigated the deceased to commit suicide and as such, ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. The question formulated above is answered accordingly. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, no illegality or irregularity is discernible in the impugned order passed by the Court below. Hence, the revision is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 18.1.2011. SN Criminal Revision No.274 of 2005 5