The accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty : Jammu High Court

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CRMC No. 10 2018 IA No. 1 2018 Pronounced on: 12 .06.2020 Gurbachan Singh and Others ….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ajay Bakshi Advocate Dalip Singh .…Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Parvinder Singh Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA JUDGE Petitioners seek quashing of order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Akhnoor holding prima facie their involvement is made out in the commission of offences under sections 145 500 298 and 323 RPC and directed to issue process against them on the complaint filed by respondent Dalip Singh The complaint was filed on 04.05.2017 alleging therein that on 14.04.2017 on the eve of Baisakhi festival the respondent was forced out from Gurudwara Nardiwala by the accused petitioners while he was performing religious prayer and on 16.04.2017 the accused again warned the complainant against entering in the Gurudwara. On 18.04.2017 accused persons made an announcement through a speaker that respondent has been socially boycotted from the Biradhari and he is also prohibited to enter in Gurudwara at Village Nardiwala Tehsil Maira Mandrian. The main occurrence is of dated 22.04.2017 which allegedly took place at 12.30 PM when the accused assaulted the complainant as soon as he entered in the Gurudwara where he was invited by Malkiat Singh and Gurdyal Singh on the 4th death anniversary of their mother Smt Balwant Kour W o Lt. 2 CRMC No. 10 2018 Puran Singh R o Nardiwala. He was thrashed by the accused mercilessly and thus reported the matter to the police but no action was taken. This is only the reason given to explain the delay of nearly 12 days in filing the complaint. Be that as it may the accused may not have any right to prevent the petitioner from entering into Gurudwara but their announcement was not to injure the religious feeling as there is nothing in the complaint to infer their intention. The allegation of social boycott could be one reason for which he can prove charge under section 500 RPC but there is no specific allegation to proceed against the accused under Section 298 RPC. Since the accused did not say anything about his religious beliefs so it was only to prevent complainant not to come to Gurudwara. The incident is of 22.04.2017 and assault has nothing to do with injuring his religious feelings. The complainant was assaulted and it cannot be related to his religion. It could be simply a case of assault against his entry and no presumption can be drawn that was interference in his religious belief. His statement is also clear that his status and position in the society has been lowered in the estimate of society. There is not even a whisper in his statement that as to how on 14th 16th or 18th April 2019 accused tried to injure his religious feeling so no offence under section 298 RPC is made out and process under section 298 RPC has been wrongly issued. It is also a case of non application of mind to say that Section 298 RPC is triable by Sessions Judge as it is triable by a Special Judge appointed under Section 259 A Cr.P.C. which prescribes special procedure for trial which has been completely ignored by the Magistrate. However it appears that the trial Court realized its mistake in taking cognizance under Section 298 RPC and referred the matter to the Sessions Judge who transferred it to Additional Sessions Judge. Similarly 3 CRMC No. 10 2018 section 145 of RPC has absolutely no application to the facts of the case as the complainant has alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 147 RPC which is punishment for rioting. This shows non application of mind by the learned Magistrate. It is thus a case of assault causing simple injury and who has caused what injury has not been specified. So while complaint could be continued under sections 500 323 RPC as such there was no ground for issuing the process under sections 298 & 147 RPC. Thus the process issued under Sections 298 & 145 RPC is illegal and to that extent the process is quashed hence this petition is partly allowed. Offences punishable under Sections 500 & 323 RPC are triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Akhnoor and the Additional Sessions Judge Jammu shall send the file to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Since some of the accused persons are very old and most of them are even senior citizens so the learned Magistrate may exercise his powers to exempt all the senior citizens from personal appearance and will also ensure that the case is disposed of with reasonable dispatch preferably within six their counsel will appear before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Akhnoor on 10.08.2020 except senior citizens on whose behalf their Advocates will seek exemption. Disposed of in the terms aforesaid. Judge Akhnoor. months. 12.06.2020 SUNIL II Whether the order is speaking: Whether the order is reportable: Yes Yes 

Summary: If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society, then the accused has the right to acquitted. This was held in the judgment passed by a single judge bench comprising of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, in the matter State of J&amp;K V. Ram Parkash &amp; ors. [CRAA No. 10/2006], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajouri in case titled State Vs. Ram Parkash &amp; ors. under Sections 498-A/306 RPC. The prosecution case against the accused persons is that Mst. Anita Devi was married to accused-Raj Pal, in the year 1988, they have two children but since she suspected that her husband-A2 had illicit relation with Champa Devi-A4, wife of Ram Parkash (A1), therefore, she was slighted from time to time and was also subjected to ill-treatment and beating. She committed suicide by jumping in the well. After recovering of her dead body, police registered a case under Section 498-A RPC but after receipt of the post-mortem report, added the charge under Section 306 RPC so all the accused were charged under Sections 306 &amp; 498-A RPC.  The Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 &amp; 498-A RPC. Even though none of the ingredients to make out the charge of 498- A RPC have been mentioned. The question is whether there was any abetment or inducement to the deceased, which drove her to commit suicide, that too, after giving birth to two children and after eight years of married life. But the question is whether the suspicion about her husband’s extra-marital relation was the result of mental sickness and if so, does it mean, she had committed suicide because she was suffering from depression. The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition and held that it is a clear case that the deceased was suffering from depression getting fit periodically as she was suffering from a psychotic problem due to which she committed suicide as revealed in the medical evidence. There is no ground for interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Click here to view judgement