Crl. Misc. No. M-30139 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30139 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.02.2011 Harmeet Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Ashu Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case FIR No. 12 dated 19.1.2010 under Sections 306 IPC registered at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar. Perusal of the record reveals that allegations against the petitioner-husband of the deceased – Upminder Kaur is that he was sent to Cyprus by his in-laws on their expenses, however, he never sent any money to his wife for her libelihood; deceased used to work in DIPS College Noormahal for her libelihood. However, after coming to India, husband-accused again started harassing the deceased and taunting her for bringing less dowry and also demanded Rs. 10 lacs. Upminder Kaur has committed suicide due to harassment and cruel behaviour of the husband-accused. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases Crl. Misc. No. M-30139 of 2010 2 371 in paragraph No. 12 has observed as under:- “Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredients of 'instigation'. 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 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. It is in a fit of anger and emotional. Hon'ble Apex Court Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors., 2007(11) SCC 205 in paragraph No.15 has held as under: - “15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.” Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sohan Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SCW 3202 in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 has held as under: - “10. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the Crl. Misc. No. M-30139 of 2010 3 doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. 11. 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.” Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 66 in paragraph Nos. 27, 28 and 29 has held as under: - “27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State Crl. Misc. No. M-30139 of 2010 4 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 196 : 2009(5) R.A.J. 278: (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. 29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human Crl. Misc. No. M-30139 of 2010 5 sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.” Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, present petition is directed to be allowed. Let petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer. (ALOK SINGH) 01.02.2011 JUDGE reena