IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 2062 of 2009 Date of decision: 31.10.2011 Kamla ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. On 21.10.2011, this Court had noticed that having filed this revision in the year 2009, the counsel had not appeared to argue the matter and had sought adjournments only. On 21.10.2011, another request for adjournment was made. While adjourning the case, it was made clear that this was being granted as last opportunity and no fresh adjournment shall be granted. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to make submission. Despite that, I have considered the revision petition, which is directed against the order of acquittal of the respondent under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. This revision is filed with delay of 249 days. I have perused the impugned order. There is also a certificate annexed with the proceedings indicating that the Government had declined to file appeal against the impugned order. This is a case where suicide note bearing the signatures of the deceased was recovered during investigation. The entire evidence led before the trial Court was analyzed by the Court. The Court found Criminal Revision No. 2062 of 2009 -2- that where it transpires that victim committed the suicide being hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life than the Court is not expected to hold the accused guilty of abetting the suicide. In this background of law, the factual aspect to the case was examined. The case set up by the prosecution was that the deceased committed suicide because of harassment and torture of the higher officer as they had not sanctioned him leave and had harassed him by appointing on night duty instead of day time duty. This averment would not lead to show abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC and the Court had rightly appreciated the evidence to record acquittal of the respondent. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. October 31, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE