Criminal Misc. No. M-7217 of 2010(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No. M-7217 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 22, 2011 Sukhwant Rai Anand ... Petitioner Versus Sanjay Anand and others ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `CrPC') has been filed challenging the judgment dated November 9 th, 2009 (Annexure P4) passed by Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, affirming the order dated August 09 th, 2006 (Annexure P3) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, whereby, complaint No.71/1 of 2004 titled “Sukhwant Rai Anand vs. Sanjay Anand @ Bony Anand and others” filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the report for cancellation of the case submitted by the Police in First Information Report (for short `FIR') No.609 dated December 14 th, 2003 (Annexure P1), under Sections 306, 406, 498- A/120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') Police Station City Yamuna Nagar, was accepted. 2. The marriage of the petitioner – complainant was solemnized with Poonam on November 30 th, 1992. She committed suicide by consuming poison. Aforesaid FIR was registered at the instance of the petitioner against the respondents, namely Sanjay Anand @ Bony Anand, Ritu Anand, Mukesh Taneja and Dolly @ Versha, who are brother, brother's wife, sister's husband and sister of Criminal Misc. No. M-7217 of 2010(O&M) [2] the petitioner, respectively. 3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents had abetted the commission of crime and the courts below fell in error while ignoring the evidence on record. 4. In view of this, question arises as to whether the accused – respondents abetted the offence which could bring their act under the mischief of Section 306 IPC. 5. To find answer to the above question, evidence needs to be re-appreciated. It is a settled law that dying declaration is the best evidence, if available on record. In the present case, the victim was hospitalised, where her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate. The statement was referred to by the Sessions Judge, which is extracted for ready reference:- “... In the statement made by the victim, she was clear-cut categorical that she had consumed two tablets of celphos. She is categorical that no one had persuaded her to consume the said tablets and that she had consumed the same out of her own volition. She had clarified that she had no quarrel with anyone that day and she had become fed up with life...” Section 107 IPC describes abetment in the following words:- “Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who - First - 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 any 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.” A joint reading of the dying declaration and the description of `abetment' makes it clear that the deceased did not utter even a single word against any of the respondents, so as to Criminal Misc. No. M-7217 of 2010(O&M) [3] implicate them in abetment of the crime. 6. Though, sub-section (3) to Section 397 CrPC prevents a second revision, so as to avoid frivolous litigation, but yet this Court has the power to entertain a petition under Section 482 CrPC in special case. However, the present case cannot be said to be one of that category as there was no iota of incriminating evidence against the respondents. 7. There is no merit in this petition. Hence, it is dismissed. November 22, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) `gian' JUDGE