Pritam Lal v. Gopal Dass & Ors.

ORDER

1. The present petition, filed under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), calls in question the order dated

28.10.2024 passed by the court of 3rdAdditional Sessions 2 Judge, Jammu (for short, "Trial Court") whereby accused/respondents have been discharged in a case arising out of FIR No.110/2023, in which charge sheet had been filed for commission of offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds: i. That the trial Court erred in concluding that the suicide note and the statements of witnesses, including the father of the deceased, were insufficient to establish a prima facie case of abetment of suicide. ii. That while framing charges, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record to ascertain whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. through acts, omissions, or conduct iii. That Section 306 IPC mandates that abetment must be established intentionally aid or instigate the victim to commit suicide, and the presence of mens rea is critical, which may be inferred from prima facie evidence, including a suicide note and witness statements. iv. That in the present case, the challan discloses sufficient material to justify framing of charges under Section 306 IPC; a prima facie case of abetment along with clear mens rea stands established, showing that the accused created circumstances that led to the alleged suicide. v. That the trial Court misinterpreted the suicide note and, without accused/respondents. discharged assigning reasons, cogent

3. Mr. Mayank Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and submitted that the Trial Court has failed to apply its mind to the evidence on record. He also contends that nearly four pages of the impugned order has been devoted to summarize judicial precedents without discussing their applicability to the facts of 3 the present case, thereby reflecting absence of judicial reasoning.

4. Mr. Pawan K. Kundal, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, has contended that no infirmity can be found in the impugned order whereby the accused/respondents have been discharged. He submits that the trial Court, while relying upon the settled position of law and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, has rightly concluded that there was no evidence against the accused/respondents, and has recorded cogent reasons in support thereof by referring to the statements of the father of the victim as well as other witnesses. It is urged that the trial Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order, inasmuch as, in the absence of legal evidence, no person can be compelled to face trial. He further submits that there is a complete lack of legal evidence indicate involvement accused/respondents in connection with the commission of suicide by the deceased, and that there is nothing on record to establish that the accused/respondents created circumstances which compelled the victim to commit suicide. Accordingly, while supporting the impugned order, he prays for dismissal of the instant petition.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record, including the impugned order. 4

6. Section 227 Cr.P.C which corresponds to Section 250 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) deals with discharge of an accused; it reads as under: - “227. Discharge. —If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

7. The provision mandates that the Judge must record reasons if he considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Judge is required merely to sift the evidence in order to ascertain whether or not there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.The expression “sufficiency of ground” includes within its ambit the nature of the evidence collected by the police or the documents produced before the Court which, on face of it, disclose suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to justify the framing of a charge. If the evidence, which the prosecution proposes to adduce, even if fully accepted as true before being subjected to cross-examination or rebuttal by defence evidence, is incapable of establishing that the accused committed the offence, then there would be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.Therefore, while discharging an accused, the Court must be satisfied that there is no ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. Section 227 Cr.P.C. itself 5 requires that, for arriving at such a conclusion, the trial Court must record cogent reasons in support thereof.

8. While perusing the impugned order, it is manifest that the trial Court has not assigned any reason on the basis of which it has arrived at a conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence. From paragraphs 1 to 5 of the impugned order, the trial Court has merely narrated the facts of the case, the arguments advanced by the parties, the judgments relied upon, as well as the statement of the father of the victim, and has thereafter concluded with the discharge of the accused. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order read as under:- “7.During the course of arguments, it has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the deceased and the daughter of the accused who were in love affair with each other belonged to two extreme Varnas of Hindu religion and in a society like Jammu, when two adults of different Varnas have love affair, there is always strong opposition on behalf of the families of the two parties and same was the case herein, it has been brought to the notice of the Court during arguments that a stage came when the girl party agreed for the marriage but the boy party which belonged to upper Verna refused to marry the loving partners. In other cases, when such are the circumstances, even the families/parents of the adults scold, abuse and even sometimes beat the adults engaged in love, so as in the instant case, allegations of abusing, threatening to beat and harassment of the deceased, although, not specific by mentioning time, place, date and the actual words used and the description of incidents, so cannot be relied upon but such occurrences are very common and natural in other cases, in the facts and circumstances when two adults of different Varnas are in love affair, so the mens rea of the accused cannot be gathered from the mere allegations of scolding, abusing and harassing, as mentioned in the suicide note and statement of the father of the deceased.

8. Therefore, keeping in view the facts of the case, contents of suicidenote, statement of the father of the deceased and other witnesses,law and case-law applicable to the facts, this Court is not convinced that charge against the accused persons is prima facie 6 made out forcommission of offence of abetment to commit suicide, madepunishable under Section 306 IPC and the Court is further of theopinion that framing of charge and futile exercise. So, the accused are discharged for the commission ofoffences under Section 306 IPC. Challan is dismissed. Personal and surety bonds of the accused its duecompilation be are cancelled. File after consigned to records.” further trial would be a

9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would become evident that the Trial Court has not recorded any reason and has discharged the accused/respondents. It may be noticed that the legislature in its wisdom has used the expression „there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence‟. This has an inbuilt element of presumption once the ingredients of an offence with reference to the allegations made are satisfied.The Court would not doubt the case of the prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash the charge in haste.

10. In case titled State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa &Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 659,a Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court referred to the meaning of the word „presume’ while relying upon the Black‟s Law Dictionary. It was defined to mean „to believe or accept upon probable evidence‟; „to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming‟. In other words, the truth of the matter has to come out when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are cross-examined by the defence, the incriminating material and evidence is put to the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code and then the accused is provided an opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is 7 only upon completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the court forming its final opinion and delivering its judgment.

11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case titled Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander ad another, 2013 SCC CR 1 986, in Paras 31 and 35 observed as under:- “31.This was not a case where the allegations were so predominately of a civil nature that it would have eliminated criminal intent and liability. On the contrary, it is a fact and, in fact, is not even disputed that the deceased committed suicide and left a suicide note. May be, the accused are able to prove their non- involvement in inducing or creating circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit suicide but that again is a matter of trial. The ingredients of Section 306 are that a person commits suicide and somebody alone abets commission of such suicide which renders him liable for punishment. Both these ingredients appear to exist in the present case in terms of the language of Section 228 of the Code, subject to trial. The deceased committed suicide and as per the suicide note left by her and the statement of her son, the abetment by the accused cannot be ruled out at this stage, but is obviously subject to the final view that the court may take upon trial. One very serious averment that was made in the suicide note was that the deceased was totally frustrated when the accused persons took possession of the ground floor of her property, C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and refused to vacate the same. It is possible and if the Court believes the version given by the prosecution and finds that there was actual sale of property in favour of the accused, as alleged by him, in that event, the Court may acquit them of not only the offence under Section 306 IPC but under Section 107 IPC also. There appears to be some contradiction in the judgment of the High Court primarily if charge under Section 306 is to be quashed and the accused is not to be put to trial for this offence, then where would be the question of trying them for an offence of criminal trespass in terms of Section 448 IPC based on some facts, which has been permitted by the High Court. for the reason that

35. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605] to contend that the offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is completely made out against the accused. It is not the stage for us to consider or evaluate or marshal the records for the purposes of determining whether 8 offence under these provisions has been committed or not. It is a tentative view that the Court forms on the basis of record and documents annexed therewith. No doubt that the word „instigate‟ used in Section 107 of the IPC has been explained by this Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 618] to say that where the accused had, by his acts or omissions or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may have to be inferred. In other words, instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence. Husband of the deceased was a paralysed person. They were in financial crises. They had sold their property. They had great faith in the accused and were heavily relying on him as their property transactions were transacted through the accused itself. Grabbing of the property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement made by the son of the deceased as well as getting blank papers signed and not giving monies due to them are the circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the deceased. The Court is not expected to form even a firm opinion at this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 of the Code.

12. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the learned 3rdAdditional Sessions Judge, Jammu, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court to hear the parties afresh and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, upon consideration of the material on record and keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.

13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE JAMMU BIR 20.08.2025 9 BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.08.21 11:23 I am the author of this document