In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the informant / opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Vishu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffar Nagar and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.117 of 2024 under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Titavi, District Muzaffar Nagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

4. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased Luv Pawar, son of the informant, was taken away by the named accused persons Vishu, Sunny, Praveen, Bholu and one unknown person from his house on 11.5.2024 at about 9:00 A.M. in a car on the assurance that he will be sent back by evening but for a period of two days, he did not return and when the informant alongwith his relative Ramesh reached the residence of the present accused appellant at about 2:00 P.M., they saw that all the aforesaid five persons including the present accused appellant were making assault upon the son of the informant and they committed his murder by throttling and also threatened the informant for dire consequences brandishing the country made pistols. F.I.R. was lodged under Section 302 IPC but however after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act only against the present accused appellant and all other persons named in the F.I.R. were exonerated by the I.O. while submitting the charge-sheet.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation. It is also submitted that there are serious contradictions in the statement of the informant himself and in the F.I.R. version. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The deceased committed suicide in a room which exists in the Gher of accused Praveen and after cutting the gate when the villagers entered into the house, they found the deceased in hanging position. It is also submitted that there was no motive on the part of the present appellant to do away with the deceased. Although a money dispute has been disclosed by the informant and other witnesses but as a matter of fact there was no money dispute between the parties. There is also contradiction on the point as to how long the deceased was working with the appellant. It is also submitted that although a protest petition has been filed by the informant against the supplementary charge-sheet which was taken cognizance of by the concerned court but the said protest petition is not sustainable under law. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained by way of an affidavit. The appellant has been languishing in jail since 21.5.2024. It is also submitted that no essential ingredients to establish the offence under section 306 IPC are made out on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. and as such there is no suicide note on record. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Muzaffar Nagar. It is further submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal, however it has been submitted that the I.O. of the case has wrongly submitted the supplementary charge-sheet under section 306 IPC whereas it was a clear case of section 302 IPC and an application against the said conduct of the I.O. has already been moved before the court concerned which is pending for hearing. It is also submitted that since some money of the accused appellant was due upon the deceased, it became a motive to commit the crime. Further, the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, Shabbir Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., in almost similar circumstances, has held like this : "In order to bring a case within the provison 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal(2010) 1 SCC 707]. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605]."

10. In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and considering the fact that even the prosecution was not agree with the I.O. of this case to submit the charge-sheet under section 306 IPC, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

13. Let the appellant Vishu involved in case crime no.117 of 2024 under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Titavi, District Muzaffar Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the informant / opposite party no.2.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Vishu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffar Nagar and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.117 of 2024 under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Titavi, District Muzaffar Nagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

4. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased Luv Pawar, son of the informant, was taken away by the named accused persons Vishu, Sunny, Praveen, Bholu and one unknown person from his house on 11.5.2024 at about 9:00 A.M. in a car on the assurance that he will be sent back by evening but for a period of two days, he did not return and when the informant alongwith his relative Ramesh reached the residence of the present accused appellant at about 2:00 P.M., they saw that all the aforesaid five persons including the present accused appellant were making assault upon the son of the informant and they committed his murder by throttling and also threatened the informant for dire consequences brandishing the country made pistols. F.I.R. was lodged under Section 302 IPC but however after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act only against the present accused appellant and all other persons named in the F.I.R. were exonerated by the I.O. while submitting the charge-sheet.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is also submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. during investigation. It is also submitted that there are serious contradictions in the statement of the informant himself and in the F.I.R. version. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The deceased committed suicide in a room which exists in the Gher of accused Praveen and after cutting the gate when the villagers entered into the house, they found the deceased in hanging position. It is also submitted that there was no motive on the part of the present appellant to do away with the deceased. Although a money dispute has been disclosed by the informant and other witnesses but as a matter of fact there was no money dispute between the parties. There is also contradiction on the point as to how long the deceased was working with the appellant. It is also submitted that although a protest petition has been filed by the informant against the supplementary charge-sheet which was taken cognizance of by the concerned court but the said protest petition is not sustainable under law. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been explained by way of an affidavit. The appellant has been languishing in jail since 21.5.2024. It is also submitted that no essential ingredients to establish the offence under section 306 IPC are made out on the basis of the evidence collected by the I.O. and as such there is no suicide note on record. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Muzaffar Nagar. It is further submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal, however it has been submitted that the I.O. of the case has wrongly submitted the supplementary charge-sheet under section 306 IPC whereas it was a clear case of section 302 IPC and an application against the said conduct of the I.O. has already been moved before the court concerned which is pending for hearing. It is also submitted that since some money of the accused appellant was due upon the deceased, it became a motive to commit the crime. Further, the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide.

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017, Shabbir Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., in almost similar circumstances, has held like this : "In order to bring a case within the provison 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 instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal(2010) 1 SCC 707]. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605]."

10. In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and considering the fact that even the prosecution was not agree with the I.O. of this case to submit the charge-sheet under section 306 IPC, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

13. Let the appellant Vishu involved in case crime no.117 of 2024 under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Titavi, District Muzaffar Nagar, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad