Crl.Rev.No.2240 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev. No. 2240 of 2008 Date of Decision: 17.3.2009 Harinder Singh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for setting aside the order dated 27.5.2008, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, ordering the summoning of the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code'). Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a teacher in a school last attended by the deceased in the year 2003. As the deceased committed suicide in the year 2004, the petitioner's connection with the deceased and the cause of his suicide is too remote to suggest any abetment. It is further submitted that apart from the use of the words “creating fear psychosis in the mind of my son” PWs-1 and 2 have failed to depose as to the particulars of any overt act that would form the factual basis of the offence of abetment, as defined under Section 107 IPC. It is Crl.Rev.No.2240 of 2008 2 further argued that the suicide note does not refer to any instigation on the part of the petitioner, as would fall within the parameters of abetment sufficient to summon the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal code. It is prayed that in view of the aforementioned submission, the present petition be allowed and the order dated 27.5.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, be set aside. Counsel for the State of Punjab, on the other hand, submits that the depositions of PWs 1 and 2 are sufficient to require summoning of the petitioner as an additional accused, as these witnesses have specifically deposed that the petitioner created fear psychosis in the mind of the deceased that led the deceased to commit suicide and, therefore, the present petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. PWs-1 and 2 while deposing before the trial Court that apart from the use of the words “creating fear psychosis in the mind of my son”, have failed to divulge the particulars or the nature of any incident as led to a fear psychosis in the deceased that compelled him to take his life. The learned trial Court failed to appraise the suicide note, apparently on the ground that it had not been exhibited so far and, therefore, should have waited for the formal proof of the suicide note. The depositions by PWs-1 and 2, in my considered opinion do not satisfy the ingredients of abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. The use of the words “fear psychosis” without reference to any supporting facts, are insufficient to summon the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code. Section 319 of the Code, confers an exceptional power that enables a Court in its quest for justice to ensure Crl.Rev.No.2240 of 2008 3 that an accused does not escape the consequences of his criminal acts. This power must, however, be exercised sparingly and with a great degree of care and caution. In cases relating to allegations of abetment of suicide, a Court is required to examine the depositions, the suicide note if any, the medical evidence etc. and thereafter record an opinion that it is satisfied or not so satisfied that the person sought to be summoned has committed or has not committed an act that falls within the definition of the expression “abetment”, as set out under Section 107 IPC. A perusal of the impugned order discloses an abject failure on the part of the trial Court, to assess the evidence on record or record any finding in terms referred to hereinabove. In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 27.5.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, to decide the application afresh, after taking into consideration the suicide note, if proved or any other evidence that may be available or produced on record, by the prosecution. 17.3.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE