Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 492 (RAJ)

Bansi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-02-14

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This revision petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC, is directed against the order dated 14.05.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Hanumangarh Junction (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 11/2003 whereby the trial Court framed the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charge, the petitioner has filed the instant Revision Petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned also record of the trial Court. 3. Initially, an application dated 13.03.2001 was filed by Ramesh Kumar S/o Sahab Ram Dhaka before the S.H.O. Police Station-Tibbi stating therein that his elder brother Ashok Kumars domestic servant had consumed poisonous drug. He was taken to hospital where he was declared dead by the Doctors. On this report, the police made an inquest report and proceeded under Section 174 CrPC. It appears that subsequently on 02.06.2001 one Lal Chand lodged report with Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Sangaria with the allegation that the petitioner administered the poisonous substance to his son Shrawan which he came to know from a suicide note alleged to have been written by deceased Shrawan. On this report, the matter was investigated for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. During investigation, disputed writing on the alleged suicide note and the admitted hand writing in Hindi of deceased Shrawan marked A-1 to A-4 in a note book at page Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 of the year 1997 as also admitted writing of Shri Subhash in Hindi marked S-1 to S-9 and B-1 to B-15 on answer-sheet dated 26.08.2000 and 28.04.2001 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion of the handwriting expert. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 28.09.2001 has been received. The admitted handwriting of deceased Shrawan in Hindi was not found to be similar to that on the suicide note, on the contrary, the admitted handwriting of Shri Subhash stamped and marked S-1 to S-9 and B-1 to B-15 and Q-1 the alleged suicide not were found to be similar on being examined by the handwriting expert. The result of examination as evident from the report of forensic Science Laboratory is that there are similarities among the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked B-1 to B-15, S-1 to S-9 and Q-1. The result of examination as evident from the report of forensic Science Laboratory is that there are similarities among the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked B-1 to B-15, S-1 to S-9 and Q-1. Thus, prima-facie, from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory it is clear that the writing on the suicide note Q-1 and the admitted handwriting in Hindi of Shri Subhash were found to be similar. On the strength of the material available on record, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suicide note was not written by the deceased, on the contrary, in order to falsely implicate the petitioner, it was created by one Shri Subhash and it has been proved from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory that handwriting on the suicide note as also admitted handwriting of Shri Subhash were similar, that shows that the suicide not was created by Shri Subhash and was not written by the deceased himself . There being no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The very foundation of the prosecution case is that the suicide note Q-1 alleged to have been written by deceased whereas it was found to be not written by the deceased but by Shri Subhash. There is no other direct evidence implicating the petitioner with the commission of the crime. 4. On close scrutiny of the record of the trial Court, it appears that there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner abetted or instigated the deceased to do anything or engaged with one or more person in any manner in any conspiracy for doing that thing. The very essential ingredient for the offence under Section 306 IPC is that if any person commit suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Shrawan. Even if the prosecution case remained un-controverted then also no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out in view of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which clearly shows that the suicide note was written by Shri Subhash and not by the deceased. Even if the prosecution case remained un-controverted then also no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out in view of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory which clearly shows that the suicide note was written by Shri Subhash and not by the deceased. In the circumstances, therefore, in my view, there is no ground to presume that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. In this view of the matter, the order impugned dated 14.05.2003 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 5. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 14.05.2003 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The petitioner is discharged of the offence under Section 306 IPC.