Crl. Rev. no. 859 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Rev. no. 859 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 29-07-2011 Jagjit Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 3.9.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which he acquitted respondents who had been charged for having committed offence under Section 306/34 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said order has referred to the facts of the case to say that one Balbir Chand who was known to the deceased enquired of the petitioner the means to send his son abroad upon which Charan Singh who was present there recommended the name of Rajinder Singh of Village Karsoa as an agent who could do the needful. The said Balbir Chand then gave a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs to the deceased for onward transmission to said Rajinder Singh. Balbir Chand's son was neither sent abroad nor the amount was returned. This led to a situation where repeated demands were made upon the deceased to return the amount. It is resultant situation which forced the deceased to take his own life leading to the registration of the FIR pursuant to which Crl. Rev. no. 859 of 2010 (O&M) 2 proceedings were initiated and the respondents were charged with offence under Section 306/34 IPC in which they have since been acquitted by virtue of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was a clear case where the respondents deserve to be convicted and sentenced as they had created a situation and harassed the deceased to an extent which forced him to take his own life. I have considered the contentions and have perused the impugned order but I am unable to agree with the contentions which have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Trial Court had placed extensive reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. The extract of the judgment is as follows:- i) In Cyriac and another vs. SI of Police 2005(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 525 it was held in para 13 that in order to prove that the accused abetted the commission of suicide, the prosecution has to establish the following factors: (1)That the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deed or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted; or that the accused strongly advised or persuaded the deceased to do something; or forced the deceased by deed, words or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence to make the deceased to move forward more quickly in a forward direction. (2) That the accused had the intention to provoke incite, urge or Crl. Rev. no. 859 of 2010 (O&M) 3 encourage the deceased to commit suicide, while acting in the manner stated above” (ii) In Vedparkash Vs. State of MP 1995 Crl.LJ 893, it was held that the word 'instigate' means to goad or urge forward or provoke, incite, urge, encourage to do an act'. (iii)In Surajmal Banthia & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal 2004 (2) Crl.Court Cases 438 (Calcutta). Their Lordships held that general allegations of torture, however, strong may be, do not make out any case of abetment to commit suicide. (iv) In Mahesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (3) Crl. Court Cases 432 (MP) death note stated that the accused had taken money from the deceased for getting a plot allotted by Development Authority and the deceased was harassed when accused refused to give plot and as a result of dishonesty of accused, the deceased committed suicide. On these facts, it was held by His Lordship that it does not fulfil the required ingredients of abetment. (v) in Pardeep Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (1) Crl. Court Cases 117 (Pb.& Hy.) His Lordship held that there should be a direct or reasonable nexus between the act and the consequences and if there is no direct nexus, the offence of abetment would not be constituted. (vi) In Sangannagari Narasimpulu Vs. State of A.P. 2006(1) RCR 350 it was a case of suicide by the bride and the husband was charged with offence under Sections 306, 498-A IPC. The accused was acquitted under Section 306 IPC but was convicted under section 498A IPC. The evidence of the mother of the deceased was that the deceased had been telling her about the harassment meted out to her by her husband. It was Crl. Rev. no. 859 of 2010 (O&M) 4 held that his hearsay statement and such a statement is not admissible in evidence so far as the offence punishable under section 498A IPC and it ha to be termed only as hearsay evidence and the conviction under section 498A was set aside. (vii) In Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana 2004 (2) RCR (Crl.) 58 some facts were not mentioned in the FIR or during investigation. Their Lordship held in para 16 that there were improvements at the time of trial and facts could not be taken into consideration to convict the accused. (viii)In Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan 1995 Crl.J.3066 there was loan transaction between the accused and deceased lady. There was persistent demand of refund of amount by the accused. The accused uttered filthy words to the deceased and the lady committed suicide under great mental stress. The accused was knowing whether the victim purchased tablets and may commit suicide. It was held that the accused was not liable for abetment of suicide. (ix) In Vedparkash Bhaiji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1995 Crl.LJ 893 accused persons intimated and goaded the deceased for repayment of loan and the deceased committed suicide soon thereafter. His Lordship held that it did not amount to abetment to commit suicide and no case under Section 306 read with section 34 IPC held to be made out. Evidently there is no material to show that the respondents had goaded the deceased to do such an act. There is no evidence to suggest any overt act and merely because he was harassed on account of the aforesaid facts cannot be a ground to convict a person under Sections 306/34 IPC. The judgments have been appreciated in the right perspective. There being no perversity in the findings recorded by the Court below, I am of the Crl. Rev. no. 859 of 2010 (O&M) 5 considered opinion that the impugned order is justified in the given set of circumstances and the revision petition is held to be without any merit. Hence, dismissed. Apart from this, the revision is also barred by delay of 58 days in filing and therefore is also dismissed on this count. July 29, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge