Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab

arresting officer to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in FIR No. 218 dated 10.11.2009 registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, under Section 306 IPC. He has contended therein that he has been falsely implicated. He owns 15 bighas of land in village Kho and 50 bighas of land in village Bhimbar. In order to look after the land situated in the latter village, he had employed Lakhwinder Singh deceased son of Bawa Singh, complainant, from 17.5.2009 to 17.5.2010 on annual salary of Rs. 30,000/-, vide agreement dated 30.5.2009. In addition to that, he had given interest free loan of Rs. 5,000/- to the deceased. He was irregular in his work and would remain absent repeatedly. On 8.11.2009 also, he was found absent from duty. On 9.11.2009 the petitioner went to Lakhwinder Crl. Misc. No. 7739 of 2010 2 Singh's house to call him, where beatings were given to him (petitioner) by the family members of the deceased for which he moved written complaint before the In-charge of Police Station Bhawanigarh. In that complaint, the deceased and his father were summoned to the Police Station, where a panchayati compromise was entered into. Vide that compromise, it was agreed that the complainant, instead of the deceased, would work for the remaining period of six months. The complainant had scolded the deceased in the Police Station itself in front of the panchayat and it was on that account that he consumed poisonous substance. Even his wife had given a representation to the SSP, Sangrur, regarding registration of false FIR. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Bawa Singh-complainant. He narrated therein that his son Lakhwinder Singh deceased used to do agricultural work and was engaged as such by the petitioner for a period of one year with effect from 20.5.2009 on payment of Rs. 30,000/- per annum. In pursuance of that agreement, the deceased had been doing the agricultural work in the farm of the petitioner day and night. On 8.11.2009 at about 6 p.m. the petitioner came to the fields and started abusing the deceased on the plea that he had not made his cattle drink water etc. and that he was not working in his absence. The deceased was given beatings by the petitioner and he was rescued by his wife Gurmail Kaur and younger son. On 9.11.2009 at about 8 a.m. he, alongwith the deceased and other family members, were present in the house when the petitioner came there on a motor cycle and started abusing the petitioner for not reporting for work and also extended threats to his life. The petitioner gave a phone call and called his son Tejinder Singh to the spot, who came there Crl. Misc. No. 7739 of 2010 3 alongwith his friends Sukhraj Singh, Iqbal Singh and Amit Bansal. All of them challenged the deceased to come out for killing him. On hearing the noise of those persons, the people from the neighbourhood gathered and the petitioner and the other accused escaped from the spot. The deceased was very much frightened. It was disclosed by him to the complainant that the petitioner had been harassing him for the work and used to make him work day and night beyond his capacity. On account of that harassment of the petitioner, the deceased consumed poisonous substance to end his life. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no such offence under Section 306 IPC is made out from the contents of the FIR. It cannot be said that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, the deceased was scolded by his own father/complainant in the Police Station, where they were called in connection with the complaint filed by the petitioner. On that account, the deceased was feeling humiliated and committed suicide. In order to save his own skin, the complainant lodged false FIR against the petitioner. He also tried to submit that no master has ever been convicted for the offence under Section 306 IPC for alleged thrashing of his servant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments:- (1) Shri Ram versus The State of U.P. AIR 1975 Supreme Court 240; (2) Raj Kumar versus The State of Punjab 1983 (1) RCR 554; (3) Swamy Prahaladdas versus State of M.P. And another 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 438; (4) Mahendra Singh and another versus State of Madhya Crl. Misc. No. 7739 of 2010 4 Pradesh 1996 Cr. L.J. 894; (5) Surender Kumar versus State of Haryana 1999 (1) RCR 558; (6) State of Gujarat versus Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta and others 1999 Cr. L.J. 736; (7) Puneet Singh and another Versus State of Punjab 1999 (4) All. Ind. Crl. L.R. 574; (8) Pawanjit Singh alias Babloo versus State of Punjab RCR 1999 (4) 157; (9) Alka Grewal versus State of M.P. 2000 Cr. L.J. 672; (10) Laxmi and anr. Versus State 2000 (2) JCC (Delhi) 297; (11) Hira Lal Jain versus State 2000 III AD DHC 121; (12) V. Adinarayana and another versus State of A.P. 2000 Cr. L.J. 1182; (13) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of Madhya Pradesh J.T. 2002 (Suppl. 1 ) 248; (14) Bhagwan Das versus Kartar Singh and others JT 2007 (7) SC 36; and (15) State of Punjab versus Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another 2008 Cr. L.J. 2104 The facts of the cases in which the above said judgments were pronounced were different. Moreover, at this stage, this Court is only to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner committed the offence under Section306 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to submit that it was in connection with his complaint made to the Crl. Misc. No. 7739 of 2010 5 police that the deceased and the complainant were called to the Police Station and a compromise was entered into. That compromise has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P/3. It is very much clear from the record that the complainant had also made a complaint against the petitioner before the police and it was in connection with both the complaints that they were called to the Police Station and a compromise was entered into between the parties. This compromise instead of creating any confidence in the version put forward by the petitioner creates confidence in the truthfulness of the contents of the FIR. From the contents of the FIR and other facts brought on record by the petitioner himself, it appears that the deceased, who was employed as agricultural servant by the petitioner, was being thrashed, harassed and compelled to do work day and night beyond his capacity. It also emerges therefrom that one day before this occurrence, the petitioner came to the house of the deceased, called his son to that place and threatened to kill the deceased. It can just be imagined what would have been the affect of those threats by a person belonging to such category and the deceased only a menial servant. The meaning of word “instigation” as used in Section 109 IPC was duly considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State (Govt. of Net of Delhi) 2009 (4) RCR (Criminal), 196. It was held therein that where the accused by his acts or omission or by a continuous course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide, in which case, an “instigation” may have to be inferred. In the present case, from the facts, as incorporated in the FIR and brought on the record by the petitioner himself, it can easily be inferred Crl. Misc. No. 7739 of 2010 6 that the petitioner by his continuous course of conduct caused harassment to the deceased and humiliated him in such manner that he was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Thus, there are reasonable grounds for `believing that the petitioner committed offence under Section 306 IPC. The nature of the offence and the circumstances in which the same was committed are such that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail, which is extraordinary remedy to be resorted to in exceptional circumstances. The petition is dismissed accordingly. March 16, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE