1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT ************* S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 538/1984 (Ramesh Chand & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan) Date of Judgment: 28th of January, 2008 PRESENTS. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE Mr. Kamlendra Singh on behalf of Mr. Biri Singh, for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Chabba, Public Prosecutor. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment dated 24.11.1984, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur by which he convicted the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced for three years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which to further undergo six months' imprisonment. 2. Instant case was initiated against the accused-appellants and two others namely Manhori S/o Hukam Chand and Smt. Triveni. The accused Ramesh Chand is the husband, Manhori and Triveni are the 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, respectively. The prosecution case is that since the time of marriage, the deceased Santo was being harrased, beaten and humiliated on account of dowry. As a result, the deceased being fed-up of the members of the in-laws family, committed suicide. 3. It was on 05.07.83, in the morning hours, that a female deadbody having been cut into pieces, was found on the railway track, near the outer signal of the railway station, Roopwa, District Bharatpur. One Shiv Kumar, a neighbour of the accused, is said to have first seen the deadbody and a doubt arose in his mind that the deadbody was of the wife of Ramesh Chand. Thereafter, a report (Ex-P/2) was filed at Police Station, Roopwas. As the matter did not appear to be clear from the report, initially proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was taken up and Ramchandra, SHO, went to the place of incident. The 'Panchnama' of the deadbody was prepared and after the conduct of postmortem, it was found to be a case of suicide. Consequently, a regular report (92/83) came to be registered for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 3 4. On the conclusion of the investigation, challan came to be filed in the Court of ACJM, Bayana under Section 306 I.P.C. The case being triable by Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same before the Court of Sessions, Bharatpur. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, framed charges under Section 306 I.P.C. vide its order dated 11.06.84. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution produced 11 witnesses and some documents which were duly exhibited. 5. Thereafter, the statements of the accused persons, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded. The accused Manhori stated that all the prosecution witnesses were telling a lie. The marriage had taken place about two months ago and he denied the expenditure of marriage to be of Rs. 27,000/-. He also denied that Dinesh had come to his house. According to the accused, they had enmity with Shiv Kumar. The co-accused Triveni also stated that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were false and Dinesh had not come to her house. She also denied any differences 4 with deceased Santo. The accused Ramesh Chand had stated that the marriage took place about two months earlier to the incident and denied that the expenditure of Rs. 27,000/- had been made in the marriage. According to him, the deceased Santo was educated up to 11th class, whereas he had failed in 8th class. He had also stated that his marriage with Santo was a second marriage because his earlier wife had died. He had specifically stated that deceased Santo use to say that she was unfortunate because she had been made to marry a person who had not passed 8th class and had married for the second time. Therefore, the deceased said that it would be better if she dies. 6. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned court acquitted Manhori S/o Hukam Chand, the father- in-law of the deceased but convicted and sentenced the accused Ramesh Chand and Triveni, for the aforesaid offences. 7. The prime witnesses of the prosecution were Nemichand (PW-1) father of the deceased and Smt. Angoori (PW-2) mother of the deceased. Dinesh (PW-4) 5 was the cousin brother of the deceased. Vagaliram (PW-2) is a railway employee. Dr. Hari Prasad Gupta (PW-5) is the Medical Jurist, who conducted the postmortem report. Shiv Kumar (PW-6), Amarjeet (PW- 7) and Chhiddi Lal (PW-8) are the independent witnesses, who are the neighbours of the accused persons. Javitri (PW-9) and Saumoti (PW-10) were the residents of village Roopwas but both of them have not supported the prosecution story and as such they had to be declared hostile. 8. The learned counsel for the accused- appellants, at the very outset, submitted that the accused Smt. Triveni has already expired on 15.01.2006. As regards, the accused Ramesh Chand, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever against him. He has further submitted that the independent witnesses namely Shiv Kumar, Amarjeet and Chhiddi Lal have not given any evidence against the accused Ramesh and as such the learned court below has grossly erred in passing the impugned judgment against him. 6 9. The learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has fully proved its case against accused persons. According to him, the accused persons had harassed, beaten and humiliated the deceased, who was married only two months ago. Consequently, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide and as such the accused persons had committed the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It has been rightly held so by the learned trial court and accordingly punished. 10. Before adverting further to the rival submissions made by the rival parties it would be more appropriate to first notice the relevant provisions of law and the settled principle in respect of it. The offence of abetment of suicide has been given under Section 306 I.P.C. The said provision reads as under:- “If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. Section 107 I.P.C. defines abetment to mean 7 that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other 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; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 12. In the case of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P., 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. based upon a dying declaration of the deceased held that:- “the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased.” 13. Similarly, in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered a case for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in 8 which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused, the Apex Court said:- “ A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. 2002 Cr.L.J. 2796 held that: “The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is 9 the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea.” 15. Recently in the case of Devendra Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007(1) Crimes 228 (SC), the Apex Court held as under:- “Having considered the judgment of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the approach of the High Court is not correct. As the purported demand made by the husband had no direct nexus or immediate cause for commission of suicide by his wife, the same would not amount to abetment of commission of such suicide.” 16. In the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Karta Singh & Ors. 2007 Cr.L.R. (SC) 430, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- “However, in our opinion mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 I.P.C., if the wife commits suicide. Hence, we agree with the view taken by the High Court.” 17. Likewise, in the case of Kishorilal Vs. State of M.P., the Apex Court held that:- 10 “In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 18. Reverting to the present case, the prosecution has not only failed in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence of suicide under Section 306 I.P.C., but a perusal of the prosecution statement, particularly that of Shiv Kumar (PW/6), Amarjeet Singh (PW/7) and Chhiddi Lal (PW/8) goes to show that there is no allegation against the appellant, Ramesh Chand. Therefore, taking into consideration the prosecution evidence on record, I am of the considered view that it has grossly failed to prove its case in establishing appellant, Ramesh Chand, guilty for the suicide committed by her wife Smt. Santo. 19. For the reason, mentioned hereinabove and the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in my opinion the offence of abetment of suicide 11 is not at all proved against the accused-persons. So far as the appellant, Smt. Triveni is concerned, she has already died on 15/01/06 and as such the appeal filed by her against the conviction stands abated. However, as regards the accused-appellant, Ramesh Chand, the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. has not been proved and the order of conviction is not sustainable. 20. In the result, the appeal against conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. filed by Smt. Triveni wife of Manohari need not be decided on merit as having been abated but so far as the Ramesh Chand is concerned, his conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. is quashed and set-aside. Therefore, the impugned judgment dated 24/11/1984 is set-aside to the extent of the Ramesh Chand. 21. Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The record shows that Smt. Triveni has expired on 15/01/06 and therefore her appeal stands abated. (RAGHUVENDRA S. RATHORE),J. RV/-Jr.P.A. Item no. S/1