Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.1.2009 Veena ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sushil Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. CRM No.38781 of 2008 Application is allowed. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 578 days in filing the present criminal revision petition is condoned. Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2008 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby Sanjay @ Tinku and Surinder (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively) were discharged as no Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2008 (O&M) 2 offence was held to be made out against them under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in para 1 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “In short, the facts leading to the case are that complainant's (Veena's) husband Rakesh Kumar was working as a sweeper in Municipal Committee, Sonipat. He had raised a loan of Rs.70,000/- in May, 2005, from Sanjay Kumar accused and in lieu thereof deposited the registered sale deed of his house with him. He went on making payment of interest from time to time. The registered sale deed was kept with 'Siya Ram Finance'. Surinder Kumar accused was working as a Property Dealer. The complainant's husband once repaid Rs.36,500/- and he again paid Rs.24,000/- and in all he had repaid the entire amount with interest but still the accused were showing the balance outstanding against Rakesh Kumar. The accused used to abuse and give beatings to Rakesh Kumar in presence of Veena complainant and his mother Raj Bai. One day both the accused gave beatings to Rakesh Kumar in the market and told him that they will recover the entire amount of Rs.70,000/- with interest and in case he did not return, they will kill him. On 28.4.2006, the complainant had Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2008 (O&M) 3 gone to the school for her work and her children had gone out for playing. Rakesh Kumar was alone present at the house. At about 12.30 p.m., the complainant's son Sumit returned to the house and saw that his father Rakesh Kumar had committed suicide by hanging with a ceiling fan. On hearing the alarm raised by Sumit, many persons of the neighbourhood gathered at the spot and they removed the noose from the neck of Rakesh Kumar. In the meantime, the complainant also reached there and she took her husband Rakesh Kumar to Civil Hospital but he was declared dead. The complainant reported the matter to the police leading to the registration of this case. A suicide note was also recovered from the pocket of deceased Rakesh Kumar. Even in the suicide note, it has been mentioned that after raising a loan from the bank Rakesh Kumar returned the amount of the accused with interest but still they were demanding Rs.8,000/- with interest. One Krishan also owed money to the accused and he had been given so much beatings that one of his hands was broken. The accused also used to state that they will deal with Rakesh Kumar in the same manner in which they dealt with Krishan in case he did not return their amount. It was lastly written in the suicide note by Rakesh Kumar that he was committing suicide as he did Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2008 (O&M) 4 not want that he should be also beaten publicly in the Bazaar like Krishan.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished a photocopy of suicide note written by deceased Rakesh Kumar, which is taken on record as Mark 'A'. He has submitted that in the suicide note left by deceased Rakesh Kumar, it had been specifically mentioned that he was committing suicide due to the harassment and threats given to him by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The entire loan amount had been paid by the deceased to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It has been held by the Apex Court in Bhagwan Das vs. kartar Singh and others, 2007 Criminal Law Journal, 3420 that for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se would not attract Section 306 IPC if the wife commits suicide. Marital disputes and discords often happen at home and wife is often harassed by husband or in-laws. The petitioner had allegedly left a suicide note that respondent No.2 and 3 were responsible for his death. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had given beatings to Krishan in the market as he owed some money to them. The deceased did not want that he should also be beaten like Krishan. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided to commission of crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without Criminal Revision No.1662 of 2008 (O&M) 5 the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107 IPC. Intentional aiding and active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of crime. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. However, in the present case, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out. The learned trial Court has held that the creation of fear in the mind of the deceased by the accused might be a cause for him to commit suicide but it could not be assumed that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had instigated or provoked or persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. The said finding of the learned trial Court calls for no interference as a perusal of the suicide note does not lead to the inference that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had abeted the deceased to commit suicide. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 28, 2009 anita