(¥ Elngte Bench IN THE HIGH CQURT OFJUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CMMINAL APPEAL N0.^/ / 2008 Appellant (InJail) Pavitro^ S/o Lakshman Nagesh^ aged about 27 years, R/o Gurujibhanta Telalkhuti, P.S. Devbhog, Tehsil Gariyaband, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondent State ofChhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374(2) OF CrPC ^ HIQH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR SB : HOH*BLE MR. JUBTZCB PRITINKER DXWAKBR APPELLANT RESPgNDBHT CR.A.NO. 761^2008 Pavitro versus State of Chhattisgarh Shri Masiish Shamia, coimsel for fhe appeUaat Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, P,L. for the State. APPLICATION U/S 374 (2j OFTHB CR.P.C. JUDOMBNT (07.04.2010) The present appeal is dirccted agaiast the judgiaent dated 14.7.2008 passed by fhe Additional Sessions Judge, OariyabaBd; District Raipur m Session Tiial No. 09/08 conwctmgfhLe accused/appeBaat for fhe offence punishable under Secfion 306 of fhe Indiaii Penal Code aad sentenciag him to undergo ngorous imprisonment for ten years aad to pay j&ne pfRs. 500, ia default of payment offine to farther undergo rigorous imprisonmeiit for one niorrth. 2. Case of fhe prosecution ia briefy is tfaat on 6.2,2008 vide Ex.P/1 inerg intmiation was given by Ganpati (P,W,-1) father ofthe deceased to fhe efiect that about four years back his daughter was married to one Indal Ram at vitlage Inda however, siace last fhree years she canie back from. her Hiatrmioiiial house. It is alleged fhat ftie accused/appeUaat was wiSlmg to keep his daughter but when she had gone to fhe house of fhe accused/appeUaiit lier parente have not accepted her and therefore ffae paachayat meetmg was caUed and a decision was taken fhat his daughter Vioila Bai (siace deceased) will Mve with fhe accused/appeBanit m his house. It is further atteged that fhereafter the deceased committed suicide by consuimng sorae poisonous substaace. Based on this xaergy FIR Ex.P/2 was registered mentionmg tliat ia the ratewemng night of 5-6.2.2008 deceased has comimtted suicide aad thercfore fhe -^bj offence under Section 306 IPC was registered agaiast the accused/ appellaat, 3, In support of its case, fhe prosecution has exaoiiaed 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appeUaat was also recorded iinder Section 313 of the Cr,P.C, ia which he denied fhe charges leveUed agaiast him and pleaded his iiinocence aad false iniplication in tlie case. 4, After heanng fhe parties, fhe trial Coiirt has convicted aiid sentenced the accused/appeUaot for fhe offence as inentioned above. Hence tlxe present appeal. 5, Contention of the counsel for the appeUant is that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, fhe offence uiider Section 306 IPC is not made out agaiast ffaie appellant as the mgredients of abetment laid down m section 107 IPC are totaUy missmg ia this case, He subxnits fhat neifher at fhe time of pancha5?rat nor at fhe tibaie ofdeafh offhe deceased, accused/appeUaiitwas present and fherefore he cannot be impMcated for any oflTence, He also subinits fhat fhere is no matenal avaUable on record fhat m aoy maxiner fhe appeUant had abeted fhe deceased as a re&ult ofwhich she has comiiaitted suicide and fherefore fhe appellaat caixnot be convicted. 6, On fhe other hand, supportiag fhe unpugned judgment it has been argiied by Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, that fhere was no occasion for fhe prosecutnx to conmiit suicide and thercfore it is fhe accused/appeUant alone who caa be held responsible for the saiae. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused titie material available on record mcludmg fhe judgment impugned. Gaapati (P.W,-1) fafher offhe deceased has stated fhat about one year back the inamage of his daughter Vimla Bai was solenmized wifh one Indal Ram of village Inda however after leaviag her matarmionial house, she was Uving wifh hiia. He has stated fhat siace last one year she used to roam in fhe cosxipany of | the accused/appeUaat aad had also eloped wifh him aiid had gone ® to Orissa and wlien fhey retunied from Orissa fhe appeUant sent fhe deceased to his house and fhen fhe pan.chayat ineefhig was catled which was not attended by the accused/appeUant but was attended by his fafher Laxinan and she was handed over to him. He has stated fhat on that particular night the deceased stayed ia the house of accused/appeUant but in fhe next xxioraiag he was iniformed fhat her daughter has died. He has fiirther stated that when he had asked fhe fafher ofaccused/appeUant as to how his daughter has died he started quarreUing witihi him. In cross examinationy fhis witness has stated fhat on fhe date of iacident accused/appellant was not present at his house. He has stated fhat as his caste is different from fhe caste of accused/appellant, his fafher was not witliag to keep his daiighter, However, he admits fhat he has never heard about aay dispute firom the house ofaccused/appeUaat 8. Ugrasen (P.W.-2) is fhe vfllage Kots^ar who had attended fhe paachayat meetmg, He has also not made any allegation agaiast fhe accused/appeUaxit Trivendra Kumar (P.W,-N3) is tiie witaess who was present ia the paachayat xneetiag and has not deposed aoythitig agaio.st fhe accused/appeUaiit Diya Bai (P.W.-4) is fhe mofher of the deceased and she adxnits fhat fhe accused/appeUan.t was haviag relations with her daughter Vinila Bai. She has also not raade ao^y aUegation a^aiast ftie accused/appeUaat Kaoilu (P,W,-5) is fhe witoaess to whom the information was given by the Kotwar fhat Vimla Bai has diecl. He has also not ixxade aiiy aUegation against fhe accused/appellaat Laxman (P.W.-6) is fhe witaess of fhe viUage meeting and has not deposed anyfhiag agamst the appeUant. Mombra Bai (P.W,~7) sister pf the accused/appellaat has been declared hostile. Laksmaa (P.W.-8) fafher ofthe accused/appellaat has not stated aayfhing against fhe accused/appeUant and has nierely stated fhat after fhe nieeting fhe deceased stayed ia fhe house of fhe accused/appeUaQt and m fhe next xnormng she was found dead, Dn AniDa Beck (P.W.-9) has conduced the postoaiorfeemL of fhe deceased aad has opuied fhat fhe cause of deafh was due to respiratoiy arrest aad has given fhe report vide Ex.P/8. She has not given any rcason as to how she died, .J^T" .^ '^ ^^'•^. s ^ 1 1 ^ 'KSgl-"^| ^y ^^ <"" S<N.Shukla (P.W,-10) fhe Investigatmg Officer has supported fhe prosecution case, 9. If the documents aad evidence of fhe witoesses are considered tihiere is absolutely no evidence on record to show fliat at the thne of deatihi of Viinla Bai, acciised/appeUaeit was not present eifher at his hoine or even in the viUage. Furfher there is no evidence on record fhat ia aay inaiuier fhe accused appellaat has abetted fhe deceased. If fhe entire anegation is seen in fhe Ught of abetment as defiiied in Section 107 IPC, nothiag to be termed as instigation or abetonent to do a particiilar fhiag is visible puttmg fhe provisions of Section 107 into motion. Sections 306 of the Indiaii Penal Code reads as iinder: 306. Abetment of SuidSe.-If any person comrmts suidde, whoever dbets the c^mmission ofsuch suidds, shall bepunished with imprisonment of either description for a ferm whichmay extend to tenyecxrs, and shall also be liable to life. To see whether fhe act of the accused/appellaat can be tenned as cruelty, a gUinpse of "abetnient0 enshrined in Section 107 IPC appears to be fhe need, which reads as under: Section 107, A person afoete the doing ofa thing, who - Slrst. - Instigates anyperson to do that thing; or Secandly - Bngages wiih one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes plcwes in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdty.- Intentionatty aidSy by any act or illegal omission, the doing ofthat thing. JExpIanaiion 1. ~ A person who, by willful rmsrepresentation, or by willful concealm^nt of a maierial fact which he is bovnd to discSose, vohintarily causes or procures^ or attempts to cause or procure^ a thing to be done^ is said to instigate the doing of that thing. ExplemwUon 2,- Whoever, either pnor to or at the time of the commission qf an act, does anything in. order to facilitate the commission of that cuct, and thereby facQ.itates the commission thereof, is scdd to aid the doing ofthat act. s ^^^ ^ ^J -^^ Even tlie parents of fhe deceased have not stated anyfhiag which could lead fhe judicial miad to affirm fhe conviction recorded by fhe Court below. Accordiagly, fhis Court finds it di85cult to be in agreeiaent with the findiags recorded by fhe Court below. 10. As a resiilt, tiie appeal is allowed. The judgment ioipugned is hereby set aside. The accused/appellant is acquitted offfae charge leveUed agamst him. He be set free at once if not required ia aay ofher case. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge