Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 58 (CHH)

ANANT KUMAR DENIAL v. STATE OF C. G.

2003-04-10

L.C.BHADOO

body2003
ORDER The complainant/applicant has tiled this criminal revision under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-8-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 10/2001 by which respondents No.2 to 4 have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the charge under section 306 of the IPC. As per the prosecution story deceased Belma W/o complainant/revisionist Anant Kumar Denial committed suicide on 18-8-2000 at 9.30 in the night at village-Jemura, P.S. Kharasia, District-Raigarh. The allegations against the respondents No.2 to 4 are that the deceased committed suicide on account of the abetment by the respondents No.2 to 4 because when the deceased was working as A.N .M. (Nurse) since last two years at Sub-Primary Health Center, Jaimura, the accused were regularly making false complaints against the deceased to her senior officers and they also humiliated and tortured her in front of the village panchayat and on account of this torture and humiliation the deceased committed suicide on the above date. The police after investigation filed challan against the accused/respondents and after trial learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons vide judgment mentioned above on the ground that making complaint to the senior officers about the work and conduct of any employee does not come under the preview of abatement. The relevant portion of para-15 of the impugned judgment is that if any complaint regarding the work and conduct of any public servant or Govt. employee is made to the superior officers as in the present case the complaint was made against the deceased to the Collector therefore it does not come under the mischief of abetment. Even though the deceased in her dying declaration has said that she has committed suicide on account of the harassment caused by the accused persons but she has not said that when and what kind of harassment was caused by the accused persons therefore based on this dying declaration the accused persons cannot be held guilty of abetment for committing suicide by the deceased therefore, learned Court below acquitted the respondents no. 2 to 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist. 2 to 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist. ,He argued that the accused persons used to harass the deceased and they were in the habit of making false complaints against the deceased and even she was , humiliated before the Panchayat also and on account of this the accused persons committed abetment, therefore the offence of abatement against the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 has been proved therefore the judgment is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside and as such the revision may be allowed and appropriate order may be passed. As per the prosecution story the only allegation against the accused/ respondents No.2 to 4 is that they used to make complaints against the deceased to the senior officers and thereby the deceased was harassed and tortured by the accused/respondents No.2 to 4 and the deceased has said this fact in her dying declaration. More over once before Panchayat the accused Peel a Babu humiliated the deceased and on that count she committed suicide. If we look at the evidence, the husband of the deceased in para-3 of his statement has said that the accused persons used to make false complaints against the deceased regarding demand of money by the deceased for the medicines. They started making such complaints 3 to 4 months prior to her deaths. They also made complaint to the Chief Medical Officer and Sub Divisional Medical Officer and on 17th August 2000 one day prior to the death she disclosed him that the accused Peela Babu misbehaved with her before the Panchayat, his wife also disclosed that all the three persons made a complaint against the deceased to the Collector. In the cross-examination this witness has said that it is wrong that his wife was not performing her official duties properly. He has expressed his ignorance about the fact that if any Panchyat was convened. He has also pleaded his ignorance that if the whole Panchayat passed a resolution against her wife for transferring her. He has further held in para-9 of his statement that about the statement dated 17th August 2000 he did not said anything to the police while his statement was recorded and he is disclosing this fact for the first time before Court. Body of his wife was burnt up to 90%, his wife also informed Dr. He has further held in para-9 of his statement that about the statement dated 17th August 2000 he did not said anything to the police while his statement was recorded and he is disclosing this fact for the first time before Court. Body of his wife was burnt up to 90%, his wife also informed Dr. Semuasl about the harassment meted out by the accused persons. P. W.2 Ashwani Satnami in his cross-examination has said that the revisionist/husband of the deceased used to consume wine and on account of that, at times they quarrel with each other. The deceased also used to doubt the character of the complainant regarding his relations with other lady Bibiyana Barua. Dr. Semual (P.W.3) has said that Belma was in senses and she was talking when she was brought to the hospital. In his statement he has nowhere said that the deceased ever disclosed him that the accused persons were harassing her whereas husband of the deceased has said that the deceased informed Dr. Semual that the accused persons are harassing. However this Dr. Semual in para-4 of his statement has said that the accused Peela Babu made a complaint against the deceased regarding performance of vasectomy (V.T.) operation of her wife against her wishes. In the statement accused Peela Babu has said that the complaints were being made by them against the deceased to the senior officers because she was not doing her duties properly and in this connection whole Panchayat of the village was also of the opinion that the deceased was not working properly therefore a legal complaint to the senior officers was made by him and he has said that the deceased performed vasectomy operation of his wife against her wishes. Even though she was a T.B. patient therefore he made complaint against the deceased 'before the Panchayat and the panchayat has also passed a resolution for transfer of the deceased. In order to prove the offence under section 306 the prosecution has to prove the abatement caused by the accused persons. In order to prove the abetment by the accused persons there must be an element of instigation, urge forward or provocation, incitement or encouragement to do "an act". In order to prove the offence under section 306 the prosecution has to prove the abatement caused by the accused persons. In order to prove the abetment by the accused persons there must be an element of instigation, urge forward or provocation, incitement or encouragement to do "an act". In order to satisfy the requirement of instigation it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide in which instigation may have to be inferred. If it transpires to the Court that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance is not excepted to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. In the light of the above position if we look into the facts of the present case even the accused persons have admitted that since the deceased was not working properly and she was negligent in her duties therefore they made complaint against her to the Collector, C.M.O. and Panchayat, and even Panchayat passed a resolution about her non performance of the duties. Even it has come on record that the deceased performed the operation of vasectomy of the wife of the accused Peela Babu without her consent and against her will although she was a T.B. patient and for this fact also Peela Babu made a complaint in the Panchayat against the conduct of the deceased. In the given circumstances making a complaint to the senior officers about the conduct of the deceased cannot be termed as an abatement to commit suicide because in order to prove the offence under section 306 of the IPC the element of harassment and cruelty must be to the extent that the deceased was not left with other alternate but to commit suicide. More over that abatement should be by the accused persons with the intention that by their harassment the affected person is harassed or tortured to such a extent that they know that on account of their continuous torture the deceased will be left with no alternative but to commit suicide. This element is missing in this case as has been held by learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore in view of the above there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. There is no evidence on record to persuade this Court to take a different view than which has already been taken by the trial Court and in the cases of acquitted it is settled law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if two views are possible then a view already taken by the trial Court should be upheld and maintained. In the result this revision has no merit and the same is dismissed. Revision Dismissed.