IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Rev. No.1554 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 8, 2010 NIRMAL SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS KULWINDER SINGH & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. KS Kahlon, Advocate, for respondents 1 & 2. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition is directed against judgment of acquittal dated 16.9.2006, recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Respondents No.1 and 2 were tried along with one Jodh Singh son of Partap Singh, for commission of offences under Sections 306/34, Indian Penal Code, and have been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that the evidence was trustworthy and the judgment needs to be reversed. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has pointed out Criminal Rev. No.1554 of 2007 2 that it is the admitted position that the deceased had taken loan and was unable to pay the same. There is no evidence to indicate abetment to commit suicide. Merely asking for return of loan, would not constitute abetment to commit suicide, as defined under Section 107, Indian Penal Code. I have considered the rival contentions. The deceased in this case is Jaspal Singh son of Nirmal Singh. The reasons for acquittal, as recorded in the impugned judgment in paras 11 to 17, are that the incident took place on 22.11.2002. The statement of the complainant-Nirmal Singh, father of the deceased, Exhibit PR, was recorded on 23.11.2001, in which he narrated the detailed circumstances leading to the death of Jaspal Singh. The death has been indicated as natural. Nobody was held responsible for the same and the complainant did not want to take any action against any person. The Investigating Officer made an endorsement for taking proceedings under Section 174, Code of Criminal Procedure. Post Mortem Examination was conducted. Inquest report, Exhibit PG, was prepared, which is signed by Karamjit Kaur, mother of the deceased, also. The application given by the complainant was supported by the mother. There is a Panchayat Nama, Exhibit DH, bearing signatures of the father and mother of the deceased and 9 other respectables, in which also, the death has been stated to be on account of mentally disturbed condition of the deceased. It is after 3-1/2 months, on 7.3.2001, that the allegation that the respondent-accused had committed offence of abetment to commit suicide, had been made. The delay has not been Criminal Rev. No.1554 of 2007 3 explained. So far as the suicide note is concerned, it has been found to be not trustworthy by the trial court. In that regard, it has also been noticed that the admitted handwriting for comparison had not been proved by the testimony of any independent witnesses. It has also been noticed by the trial court that the cheques handed over by the deceased, Exhibits DC, DD and DE, could not be encashed by the Bank because there was no amount in the account. Another brother of the deceased-Jaspal Singh, had pre-deceased Jaspal Singh. The two had been taking loans from Financial Institutions and were returning the amount only after distress process was initiated. The version of the prosecution that the deceased had already paid amount more than what was due, stood demolished, on consideration of the evidence. In my considered opinion, I do not find that prosecution has been able to make out a convincing case of abetment to commit suicide. Asking a person to return the loan would not, per se, make out a case for commission of offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. There is considerable delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained. First version of the complainant i.e. father of deceased, and mother of deceased was that no offence has been committed. Considering the reasons assigned while acquitting the respondent-accused, I find no scope for interference in revision against acquittal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to draw the attention of the court towards any material or evidence that has not been Criminal Rev. No.1554 of 2007 4 considered or any evidence that has been perversely interpreted. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. February 8, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?