Crl. Rev. No.3154 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Rev. No.3154 of 2009 Date of Decision: 13.05.2011 Smt. Garesh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- None for the petitioner. Ms.Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order and judgment dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which, the respondent No.2 has been acquitted in case FIR No.97 dated 29.07.2007 under Sections 306/328 IPC registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar. The grounds as raised in the revision petition are that on 28.07.2007, the daughter of the petitioner received a phone call from the mobile of respondent No.2, namely, Raju and after that daughter of the petitioner, namely, Ribika went into a room and consumed liquor and became unconscious. Another ground raised is that the petitioner and her husband supported the case and narrated the entire story but the Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly acquitted the respondent No.2 and that there was sufficient evidence to convict the respondent No.2 under Section 306 IPC. The prosecution has proved its case under Section Crl. Rev. No.3154 of 2009 2 306 IPC. The respondent No.2 cannot be given the benefit of doubt only on the basis of minor contradictions. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, submitted that PW-5 Paramjit Singh, before whom the extra judicial confession is stated to have been made, did not support the prosecution version. It is further submitted that there are various contradictions in the statements made by the witnesses. There is no mention of abetment in the earlier statements placed on record as Ex.DB and Ex.DC made by Garesh i.e the mother of the deceased. Thereafter, an improved version was recorded. The facts, in short, are that Ribika d/o Surjit was got admitted in the hospital on 29.07.2007 as she had consumed poison. Thereafter, she died. Her statement could not be recorded. However, the mother of the deceased, namely, Garesh wife of Surjit got recorded her statement to the effect that her daughter Ribika told her that Raju was insisting that she should marry him as he has also not been able to consummate marriage with his wife failing which he would make her life miserable and shall defame her. In fact, DW-1 Vicklef Gold, who is the brother of the father of the deceased stated that his brother's daughter did not adjust in her matrimonial home. DW-2 Bharat Bhushan, who is a member of Panchayat also made a similar statement that the parents of Ribika, namely, Surjit and Garesh never made any complaint against Bainjeman accused. DW3 Rajni, who is the wife of Bainjeman also stated that she is leading happy married life with her husband i.e the accused. It is also born out from the facts that Garesh had earlier made a statement Ex.DB and Ex. DC, in which, no allegation was alleged against the accused. Exhibit DA was recorded later on. In order to attract the abetment under Section 306 IPC, the necessary ingredients contained in Section 107 IPC have to be proved and Crl. Rev. No.3154 of 2009 3 if the provisions of Section 107 IPC are not satisfied, no case can be said to have been made under Section 306 IPC. Before proceedings further, it would be just and relevant to reproduce the aforesaid two Sections as under:- “Section 306 IPC – abatement of suicide. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 107. abatement of thing – A person abets the doing of a thing who; Firstly, 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 an act or illegal omission takes place ini 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. Explanation : 1. A person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to discloses voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing.” In the case of Cyriac and another v. The SI of Police, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 525, Hon'ble High Court, in para 7 of the judgment held as under:- “7. As per clause 'firstly' in Section 107 IPC, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing if he 'instigates' any person to do that thing. But, when can a person be said to have 'instigated' another to do an act? What is meant by the expression, 'instigate'? The word 'instigate' is not specifically defined in IPC. As per Oxford Dictionary 'instigate' means 'to goad or urge forward, to provoke, incite, urge, encourage to do an act.” The meaning of the word 'instigate' was considered by Supreme Court also. In Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhatisgarh 2001(4) RCR (Crl.) 537 (SC) JT 2001 (8) SC 569, a decision cited by learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Supreme Court held “instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. As per another decision cited by counsel for petitioners in Ved Paraksh v State of M P (1995 Crl. L J 893), the word 'instigate' means 'to goad or urge forward to provoke, incite, urge, encourage to do an act.' Crl. Rev. No.3154 of 2009 4 Keeping in view the above noted interpretation of the abatement, instant is a case where none of the provisions of Section 107 IPC are satisfied. There is no defect of procedure, no improper acceptance or rejection of evidence. In fact, there is hardly any evidence which may show that the respondent-accused in any manner instigated, abetted, forced the girl to commit suicide. Thus, Section 306 IPC is not attracted in the facts of the present case. In fact, the facts, as have come forward are that the deceased Ribika was having an affair with Raju @ Bainjeman. Thereafter, both of them got married into different families. Whereas, Raju had adjusted with his wife, the deceased Ribika could not adjust. While she was staying in her parents' house, she committed suicide. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. As per the ratio of judgment rendered in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar reported as 2002(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 61, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference. Para 12 of the said judgment reads thus ; “12. We have carefully considered the material on record and we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in re-appreciating the evidence on record and coming to a different conclusion in a revision preferred by the informant under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 in terms provides that nothing in Section 401 shall be deemed to authorize a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. The aforesaid sub-section, which places a limitation on the powers of the revisional court, prohibiting it from Crl. Rev. No.3154 of 2009 5 converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction, is itself indicative of the nature and extent of the revisional power conferred by Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. The High Court will not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal merely because the trial court has taken a wrong view of the law or has erred in appreciation of evidence. It is neither possible nor advisable to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be justified, but decisions of this Court under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against acquittal by a private party.” No such evidence or facts have been brought to the notice of this Court which may enable this Court to interfere in the judgment and order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar and set aside the order of acquittal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. Dismissed accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 13.05.2011 JUDGE gurpreet