Criminal Revision No.1097 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1097 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 27, 2008 Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Pal ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.M.S.Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr.Dharminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the order framing charge against him under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. Petitioner Rajinder Kumar @ Rajinder Criminal Revision No.1097 of 2008 : 2 : Pal is a commission agent, who is accused of abetting suicide committed by one Daljit Singh and, thus, charged accordingly. The facts, in brief, are that Daljit Singh had engaged the petitioner as a commission agent and was having money transaction with him. On 26.10.,2007, said Daljit Singh loaded paddy in two trolleys after harvesting and took them towards Cheeka Mandi for selling the produce. Enroute, Billu on of Swaran Singh, Geja son of Avtar Singh, Jinder Singh son of Nirmal Singh accompanied by one unknown person came riding on Swaraj 744 Tractor and followed the tractor driven by deceased Daljit Singh. As per the allegations, they intercepted Daljit Singh near village Asmanpur by stopping his tractor trolley and asked him to first settle the accounts of Rajinder Kumar, the petitioner, and thereafter sell the produce anywhere else. These persons statedly were guarantors to the loan, which, late Daljit Singh had taken from Rajinder Kumar. Arguments ensued between them and these persons summoned Rajinder Kumar through telephone call. The father of late Daljit Singh intervened and the parties cooled down. Daljit Singh was asked to bring the tractor-trolley back to Dera and the complainant, who is father of the deceased, returned on a motor cycle. When the tractor did not reach back for some time, the complainant again went towards village Asmanpur, when he found that petitioner Rajinder Kumar accompanied by two young boys had reached there and was giving beating to Daljit Singh. The petitioner was also heard saying to the deceased that he should die by drowning himself and has no right to live. The complainant would allege that he and his brother saved Daljit Singh with great difficulty Criminal Revision No.1097 of 2008 : 3 : and thus came back to the Dera along with the tractor. The trolley was statedly taken by petitioner Rajinder Kumar. While they were present at the Dera, Daljit Singh went to a room and swallowed some poisonous medicine. When enquired, Daljit Singh told the complainant that he had been insulted and was not able to show his face to anyone and so has consumed poisonous medicine. He was taken to hospital at Samana and on examination found to have died. It is on this basis that the FIR was lodged against the petitioner and others. On completion of investigation, the charge against the petitioner has been framed under Sections 306/34 which is now being impugned Mr.M.S.Khaira, learned Senior counsel would submit that even if the allegations are viewed in a best possible manner in favour of the prosecution, these would not reveal an offence of abetment under Section 306 IPC. There may be allegation of beating or of forcible taking away of the trolley full of paddy and may reveal certain other offences, but certainly not an abetment of suicide for which the charge has been framed against the petitioner. He would further say that the insult and humiliation, which had admittedly led the deceased to commit suicide, would not reveal any allegation of abetment. Reference to Section 107 IPC would show that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing; Criminal Revision No.1097 of 2008 : 4 : or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission for doing of that thing. It is on the basis of this definition, the counsel would say that the allegation of abetment would not be made out against the petitioner and hence the charge under Section 306 IPC would not stand. In support of his submission, the counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Gurdeep Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal). It has been held in this case that there has to be a direct nexus between the act complained of and the ultimate effect. It is further observed that if the deceased had resorted to commit suicide, it cannot be readily said that the petitioner was responsible. It is also observed that the deceased might have felt ashamed on account of an attempt of cardinal intercourse with the deceased, but this act alone would not be material part which can be said to have led to abetment and instigation on the part of the accused therein for the deceased to commit suicide. The relevant observation of this court in the case of Gurdeep Singh(supra) are reproduced as under:- “A reading of the above provisions would show that there should be a direct nexus between the act complained of and the ultimate effect. If the deceased had resorted to commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil upon himself, it cannot be readily said that petitioners were responsible. As per the allegations of the prosecution one of the petitioners tried to have cardinal intercourse with the deceased. The deceased might have felt ashamed on this. He might have also felt ashamed of the fact that he had committed the theft of the money of the master. Criminal Revision No.1097 of 2008 : 5 : There was a demand of money which was the material conduct on the part of the petitioners but it cannot be said that there was common abetment or that there was any instigation on the part of the petitioners to the deceased for committing of suicide. I do not dispute with the proposition of law that while framing the charge the trial Court is supposed to see a prima facie case, but if the parameters of prima facie case are totally beyond the circle and scope of Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. certainly this court has the power to interfere with the said illegal orders while exercising the powers in revision.” The learned State counsel, however, would point that the deceased had died only because of humiliation that he faced on account of the action of the petitioner. The moot point to be decided in this case is whether the act on the part of the petitioner would reveal any act of abetment as envisaged under Section 107 IPC. The deceased had a dealing with the petitioner and he owed him some money. The petitioner had taken some action to recover his loan amount. In that bargain, he had taken some action and had resorted to some sayings as alleged in the FIR. These allegations would not lead to abetment by instigation or otherwise. It is not for this court to see whether any other offences are made out or not. Counsel for the petitioner is justified in submitting that the facts would not reveal an offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The Criminal Revision No.1097 of 2008 : 6 : impugned order is set aside and the charge framed against the petitioner is quashed. August 27, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE