Surjit Singh v. State of Haryana

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.H.P.S.Ishar, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The story of the prosecution is that petitioner being husband's uncle of deceased has pressurized the husband to take divorce from deceased Kawaljit Kaur, as such, he along with other family members and husband is responsible for the suicide. The petitioner has contended that if seen in context to the definition of suicide under Section107 of the IPC, no offence is made out regarding abetment of suicide, as such, the charges framed against the petitioner being uncle of husband of deceased are not sustainable. It has been prayed that the legality and propriety of the order framing charge should be determined and charge should . . . 1 Crl.Rev.No.3054 of 2009 (O&M) be dropped against the petitioner for having committed offence of abetment to suicide. The suicidal note of deceased Kanwaljit Kaur reads as follow: - “I am stating in my full senses that I am consuming poison being distressed from my in- laws. My in-laws and my husband has thrown me out of the house. Neither I have parents and nor the husband,. Where should I go? Therefore, I am taking this step. My husband's uncle Surjit Singh and his mother are pressurized my husband for taking divorce. I have no place and no meal to eat. Therefore,I am committing suicide. My husband is responsible and his family is responsible.” I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. As per Section 306 IPC, if any person commits suicide who ever abets the commission of suicide, shall be punished. So far as Section 107 IPC is concerned, a person is said to abet the doing of a thing when he either 'instigates' any person to do a thing or he 'engages' himself in an act or 'illegal omission' in pursuance to the conspiracy or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission of doing a particular thing. It has to be determined on the face of the evidence produced on the record whether the act of the petitioner would fall within the definition of 'intentionally aids' or 'instigated the deceased' to commit suicide. The petitioner is specifically named in the suicide note to have played such a part which is alleged to have aided the . . . 2 Crl.Rev.No.3054 of 2009 (O&M) commission of act of suicide. In a matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 (1) RCR (Crl.) Page-209, Didigam Bikshapathi & anr. Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court in exercise of inherent jurisdiction had not quashed the proceedings in a case under Section 306 IPC, where the deceased had specifically named the petitioner in that case. The Supreme Court observed that in that case the suicide note had clearly referred to the acts of the accused-appellant and the role played by him as such, High Court had rightly not quashed the proceedings. In the present case, it has to be established with the aid of other evidence and the suicide note whether the act of the petitioner in any manner would tantamount to 'instigation' or 'aiding' the suicide. The petitioner may be having a very good case on merits but exercising the revisional jurisdiction on appreciation of evidence, at this stage, does not seem to be appropriate. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs.State of West Bengal, 2010 (1), Criminal Court Cases, Page167 (S.C.), in which the conviction under Section 306 IPC was set aside upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 498-A IPC, observing that to bring the case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the . . . 3 Crl.Rev.No.3054 of 2009 (O&M) commission of suicide. The act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. In the said case, the conviction had been set aside on the basis of appreciation of evidence. The exercise of power of acquittal on appreciation of evidence is different from discharging an accused without trial. Therefore, the case of the petitioner, at this stage, can be said to be distinguishable from that of Amalendu Pal's case (supra). Counsel for the petitioner further relies upon Bhagwan Das Vs.Kartar Singh & Ors., 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.), Page 87, and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) RCR (Crl.), Page 687, to contend that it is not a case where abetment is involved. In the said judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the abetment involves a mental process to instigate a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing. I am of the considered opinion that the said factors cannot be determined merely on the basis of suicidal note and has to be appreciated in contest to other evidence. Therefore, the above said judgments are also distinguishable and not applicable. In view of the fact that the petitioner is an old man, he may move an application for exemption of his personal appearance. If such a prayer is made, it will be open to the trial Court to record the statements of the witnesses in the presence of counsel . . . 4 Crl.Rev.No.3054 of 2009 (O&M) for the petitioner as per Section 273 Cr.P.C. The petition is dismissed. However, anything said in this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner. February 01, 2010. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE . . . 5