Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.02.2009 Jagmal Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Kimti Lal, Gaindi Devi and Kirpa Ram-respondent Nos.2 to 4 were tried for an offence under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in FIR No.26 dated 7.2.2007 registered at Police Station Sadar, Yamuna Nagar. However, they were acquitted vide judgment dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar. Aggrieved by the same, Jagmal Singh- petitioner/complainant has filed the present revision petition. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos.3 and 4 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- “3. ASI Harish Chand and two other policemen visited PGI, Chandigarh on February 7, 2007 where Sh.Jagmal Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Singh lodged report about the circumstances under which his sister, namely Santosh had suffered the burns and had expired. He has stated before the police that his sister Santosh was married with accused Kimti Lal son of accused Kirpa Ram as per the Hindu rites and ceremonies approximately eight years ago. The couple was blessed with two children but the first born did not live for long whereas the second issue, namely, Ashish was seven years of age then. Complainant Jagmal Singh further told the police that deceased Santosh and accused Kimti Lal lived a happy married life for quite a few years whereafter he started harassing her in connivance with his parents namely Kirpa Ram and Gaindi Devi and his brothers, Mohan Lal. They often attacked her moral character and physically tortured her. Panchayats were thus convened on two or three occasions at Police Station, Mulana and Yamuna Nagar to sort out the differences between the couple. The Panchayat prevailed upon him and the members of his family on each occasion and deceased Santosh was sent by them to her nuptial home to live with her man. Sh.Krishan Lal, younger brother of the complainant, had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to accused Kimti Lal approximately 1 ½ years prior to the incident for Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) 3 purchasing peace for his sister. However, the behaviour of the private respondents did not show any positive change. 4. The complainant learnt on that fateful morning that Santosh doused herself in kerosene at about 4.30 a.m. and set herself ablaze and that she was being shifted to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment. The members of his family rushed to PGI, Chandigarh and learnt that Santosh expired on her way to Chandigarh.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Santosh, sister of the petitioner, had died due to burn injuries. She had been maltreated by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 on account of insufficient dowry and due to this reason she had committed suicide. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were guilty of abetting the suicide committed by the deceased. In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of statement of the petitioner, who had stated that his sister Santosh was married to accused Kimti Lal as per Hindu rites about eight years ago. The couple was blessed with two children. After few years of marriage Kimti Lal, respondent No.2 started harassing his wife. He also physically tortured his wife and doubted her character. On many occasions matter was compromised with the help of Panchayat. Krishan lal, younger brother of the petitioner, had paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2 about 1 ½ years prior to the Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) 4 occurrence. However, the behaviour of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 did not change. Fed up with this, Santosh poured kerosene oil on herself at about 4.30 a.m. on the day of occurrence i.e. 7.7.2007 and set herself on fire. Thus, as per the allegations levelled against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 an amount of Rs.10,000/- had been paid to respondent No.2 1 ½ years prior to occurrence. Thereafter, there is no specific allegation of payment of money, if any, raised by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Learned trial Court has observed that the petitioner, during cross-examination, could not even disclose the name of the son of the deceased. Petitioner had stated that respondent No.2 had also suffered burn injuries while he was attempting to extinguish the fire. As per petitioner and Krishan lal (PW-12), Panchayat was convened about 2-3 years ago. Learned trial Court has also observed that the version given by Krishan Lal (PW-12) and the petitioner did not corroborate each other. So far as Krishan Lal (PW-12) is concerned, he deposed that Santosh visited his residence about 4-5 days prior to the occurrence and had told him that a fresh demand for money had been made by the accused and in case the demand was not met, she would be killed. He had promised to pay the amount within 4-5 days but Santosh was done to death on February 7, 2007. He also stated in his cross-examination that he had told about her (Santosh) visit to the petitioner but the petitioner, while appearing in the witness Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) 5 box, had not corroborated the version of PW-12. Moreover, the said incident stated by Krishan Lal (PW-12) was not disclosed by him in his statement Ex.DA. Krishan Lal (PW-12) admitted that Kirpa Ram and his wife Gaindi Devi (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) were residing separately. He also deposed that Panchayat had been convened after four years of marriage of the deceased Santosh. He could not tell the date, the month or the year in which he had paid Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2. Dr.Manisha Singh (PW-1), who had medico-legally examined Santosh, deposed that the patient was brought to the hospital by her husband and she had not made any allegation against any person with regard to the burn injuries suffered by her. As per Section 306 IPC provision for abetment of suicide reads as under:- “Abetment of suicide:- 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.” As per Section 107 IPC abetment of a thing has been defined as under: “Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- first- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) 6 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.” Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment then the offender, who is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. The offence for abetment, therefore, is normally linked with the proved offence. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahendra Singh and another v. State of M.P. 1995 AIR SCW 4570 that mere allegation of harassment made by deceased in her dying declaration against the accused was not sufficient to constitute the offence. The said view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 810. The present case relates to abetment of suicide by respondent Nos. 2 to 4. To establish the offence, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. When the factual matrix of this case is examined, it is Crl.Rev.No. 89 of 2009 (O&M) 7 clear that there was no immediate harassment to the deceased. The statements of petitioner and Krishan Lal (PW-12) failed to establish that the deceased had committed suicide on account of harassment meted out to her by accused/respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The said witnesses have made material improvements in their statements. In these circumstance, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It has been held by the Apex Court in Satyajit Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal (ST), 2004 (10) JT 27 that direction for de novo trial could be given in extraordinary case where Court was convinced that entire trial was farce. Revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal at the instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by the High Court only in very exceptional cases where the High Court finds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice. The present case does not warrant retrial. As per Section 401 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a finding of acquittal cannot be converted into a finding of conviction by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is without any merit and is dismissed. Hence, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is merely academic and is disposed of as such. (SABINA) JUDGE February 25, 2009 anita