IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA No.252-MA of 2008 Date of decision: 26.9.2008 State of Haryana ….. Appellant Versus Hans Raj and Others ….. Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN. * * * Present: Mr.Kartar Singh, AAG Haryana for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The Crl. Misc. application has been filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) by the State of Haryana seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short). On 07.11.2006, ASI Harnam Singh (PW9) who was posted at Police Post, Ram Nagar, Karnal received a wireless message from the Superintendent of Police, Jind regarding the admission and death of Sultan Singh son of Jagdish in the General CRA No.252-MA of 2008 [2] Hospital, Jind. He (ASI Harnam Singh PW-9) alongwith other police officials reached General Hospital, Jind where SHO, P.S. City, Jind handed over ‘ruqa’ (writing) (Ex. P-10) regarding the admission of Sultan Singh and a ‘ruqa’ (writing) (Ex. P-11) about his death. After the receipt of said writings (‘Ruqas’), ASI Harnam Singh (PW9) went to the Dead House at the General Hospital where complainant-Mohinder Singh (PW4) son of Ram Kishan met him. Mohinder Singh (PW4) made a statement to the effect that Sultan Singh (deceased) - his cousin brother was married with Usha (respondent No.6) in Shiv Colony, Karnal about two and a half years prior to the occurrence in the present case, which had occurred on 6.11.2006. After 5-6 months of their marriage, relations between Usha (respondent No.6) and her in-laws became strained. Usha (respondent No.6) remained at her in-laws' house at Jind for a few days and for some time she remained at her parents’ house. However, the relations between Usha (respondent No.6) and her husband Sultan Singh (deceased) were not cordial. Usha (respondent No.6) gave birth to a male child, who was aged about one year. After marriage, on the occasion of ‘Bhaiya Dooj’ festival brother of Usha (respondent No.6) namely Raj Kumar came at Jind at the house of Sultan Singh. On the same night, an altercation took place between Sultan Singh and his wife Usha (respondent No.6) on the ground that Raj Kumar brother of Usha (respondent No.6) wanted to take her to her parents’ house. Sultan Singh, however, was telling her not to go to Karnal. On 03.11.2006, Raj Kumar brother of Usha (respondent No.6) submitted an application against Sultan Singh at the police post Ram Nagar, Karnal. However, the matter was settled by the CRA No.252-MA of 2008 [3] Panchayat and the complaint filed by Raj Kumar, brother of Usha (respondent No.6), was filed by the police. On 05.11.2006, the complainant received a telephonic message from Karnal asking the family members of Usha (respondent No.6) to take her to her matrimonial house at Jind. On 06.11.2006 the complainant Mohinder Singh (PW4) alongwith Sultan Singh (deceased) came to Karnal to take Usha (respondent No.6) to her matrimonial home at Jind. They reached Karnal at about 12 noon. They (i.e. Mohinder Singh - PW4 and Sultan Singh) stayed there for 10-15 minutes at their house. In the meantime all the accused (respondents) came there and started beating Sultan Singh. Complainant - Mohinder Singh (PW4) ran away from the spot after leaving Sultan Singh at the house of the accused (respondents). Thereafter, he reached the house of Sultan Singh at about 8.00 p.m. Later he came to know that Sultan Singh was lying in an unconscious condition on the back side of the building of Jat College. From there he was taken by his father to the Civil Hospital, Jind for treatment. After about half a hour of his (Sultan Singh) reaching there he died at the hospital. It is alleged that Sultan Singh had died due to beating given by the accused (respondents) for not sending his wife Usha (respondent No.6) with him to Jind. On the basis of the statement (Ex.P7) of Mohinder Singh (PW4) made before the police, FIR in the case was registered. Cause of death of Sultan Singh was opined by Dr Anil Birla (PW3) and Dr. Kuldeep Rana who conducted the post mortem examination to be due to organo phosphorous pesticide. The respondents were charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court after considering the evidence and material on CRA No.252-MA of 2008 [4] record has acquitted the respondents. Against the said order of acquittal, the State seeks leave to appeal in this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the learned trial court has not taken into account the injuries that were suffered by Sultan Singh which compelled him to commit suicide. It is submitted that Sultan Singh had been called to Karnal by his in-laws on the pretext of sending his wife Usha to her matrimonial home. The prosecution version, it is submitted, stands established from the deposition of Mohinder Singh (PW-4), who is the complainant in the case and had accompanied Sultan Singh (deceased) to the parental house of his wife Usha where injuries were caused to him, which led him to commit suicide. The prosecution version, it is submitted, stands corroborated by the deposition of Jagdish (PW-5), who is father of deceased Sultan Singh, besides, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report (Ex.P-3) records organo phosphorous pesticide as the cause of death. Therefore, it is submitted that leave to appeal is liable to be granted against the order of acquittal. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the State; however, find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the entire family of Usha (respondent No.6) who was the wife of the deceased Sultan Singh had been implicated in the case. Mange Ram (Respondent No.5) is the father of Usha (Respondent No.6). Hans Raj (respondent No.1) and Chiranji Lal (respondent No.4) are the brothers of Mange Ram (Respondent No.5), besides, Raj Kumar (respondent No.2) and Suresh (respondent No.3) are the sons of Mange Ram (Respondent No.5). The involvement of the entire family of Usha CRA No.252-MA of 2008 [5] (Respondent No.6) for the offence of abetment to commit suicide goes to show that the prosecution case is considerably exaggerated. The entire family of Usha (Respondent No.6) cannot in the facts and circumstances of the case be said to have abetted the commission of suicide by Sultan Singh and the chances of false implication cannot be ruled out for which the benefit is to go to the accused. The contention that the injuries were caused to the deceased Sultan Singh by the respondents, it may be noticed that no charge was framed against them as regards the injuries that were found on the person of the deceased. The learned trial Court has observed though it had come in the statement of Mohinder Singh (PW4) that Sultan Singh was given beatings and his wife was not sent with him, however, for the said reason it cannot be said that there was any abetment on the part of any of the accused for Sultan Singh to commit suicide. Reliance was placed on the case of Bhagwan Dass Vs. Kartar Singh and others, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 87 (SC) wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it often happens that there are disputes and discords in matrimonial home and the wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, would not by itself and without something more per se attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. Reliance was also placed by the learned trial Court on Sanjay Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 678 (SC) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the wife commits suicide on account of the constant quarrel between the husband and wife on account of drunkard habits of the husband, the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 CRA No.252-MA of 2008 [6] IPC were not attracted. Therefore, merely because there had been some matrimonial discords between Sultan Singh and his wife Usha (respondent No.6), it cannot be said that on account of the said discords the respondents had abetted the commission of suicide by Sultan Singh. As regards the injuries on the person of Sultan Singh (deceased) it may also be noticed that in terms of the post- mortem report, there were three injuries on the dead body of Sultan Singh and these were abrasions. One is an abrasion of 4 x 3 cms on the left frontal region with scab formation. The second is an abrasion of 1.5 x .5 cm on the frontal region with scab formation and the third is an abrasion of 1.5 x 1 cm on the left eye-brow with scab formation. These injuries are not attributed to any particular person but general allegations are there that the respondents had caused the injuries. However, these injuries were admittedly not the cause of death as organo phosphorous pesticide is reported to be the cause of death. The contention that the prosecution case stands proved by the deposition of Mohinder Singh (PW4) and also corroborated by the evidence of Jagdish (PW5) who is father of the deceased Sultan Singh is not of much significance as we have held that there is no case made out against respondents and they had abetted the commission of suicide by Sultan Singh deceased. The FSL report (Ex.P3) records the presence of organo phosphorous pesticide. Dr. Anil Birla (PW3) who along with Dr. Kuldip Rana had conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Sultan Singh has opined the cause of death to be due to organo phosphorous pesticide. The case of the prosecution is that Sultan CRA No.252-MA of 2008 [7] Singh had committed suicide. Once it has been held that there was no abetment on the part of the respondents in the commission of suicide by Sultan Singh, the respondents are not to be liable for the offence of abetment to commit suicide by Sultan Singh. It has also been noticed that suicide committed by Sultan Singh was at Jind at his home and not at Karnal which is the home of the respondents. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court, which would require intervention of this Court. Besides, merely because another view is possible on the basis of evidence and material on record would not require an order of acquittal being converted to that of conviction. Consequently the application seeking leave to appeal against the order of the trial Court, is dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge ( S.S. Saron ) Judge 26.9.2008 Meenu/amit