Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 759 (RAJ)

Navratan Mal alias v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-06

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant revision filed under Section 397/401, CrPC, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 011.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara (for short “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 79/2005, whereby the trial Court framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306, IPC. Aggrieved by the order impugned framing charge, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned as also the challan papers. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court framed the charge on the basis of a suicide note written by the deceased but the suicide note does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence of abetment to commit suicide. Learned Counsel submits that to constitute an offence of abetment, the very essential ingredients are that whoever instigates any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing, if an order or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to do that thing or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, doing of that thing. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the order impugned. 5. Learned Counsel has relied on the decisions of this Court in Shankar Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Revision No. 754/2004 decided on 02.03.2005; and Manish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cri.LJ 3066. He has also relied on a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M .P., 2002 (5) SCC 371 . 6. In Shankar Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), this Court held that to construe the offence under Section 306, IPC, the essential ingredients are that any person committed suicide; that such a commission of suicide by the consequence of an abetment; and that abetment was made by the accused. 7. In Rameshwar Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) RCC 1064, this Court held that in order to construe the offence under Section 306, IPC, there must be some evidence that the deceased person was instigated to commit suicide. 7. In Rameshwar Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan, 1999 (2) RCC 1064, this Court held that in order to construe the offence under Section 306, IPC, there must be some evidence that the deceased person was instigated to commit suicide. The essential ingredients for the offence under Section 306, IPC are that any person commits suicide on being abetted by some person to commit suicide. 8. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 1999 CrLR 141 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court held that it is difficult in the facts and circumstances to come to even a prima facie view that what was uttered by the appellant was enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. It was further held that those words are casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between the quarreling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said Act does not reflect the requisite mens rea on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. In that case, the appellant therein remarked for the deceased to go and die. The Apex Court held that it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the words uttered by the appellant in that case. 9. In Manish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra), this Court held that to construe an offence under Section 306, IPC, mens rea is an essential ingredient. In that case, the accused had lent certain amount to the victim lady and he was persistently demanding from her the amount paid. The victim was not in a position to repay the amount. It was held that demanding of money given on loan was not an offence under any provision of criminal law. There was also no evidence to suggest or indicate that the accused knew or had reason to believe that victim had purchased poisonous tablets and would commit suicide. 10. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618 , the Honble Apex Court held as under:-“A word utter in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 10. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618 , the Honble Apex Court held as under:-“A word utter in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord or differences were not expected 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 11. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P., 2002 (5) SCC 371 , the deceased wrote a suicide note alleging therein that Sengar is responsible for his death. The Honble Apex Court held that the ingredients of abetment are totally absent in the instant case for construing the offence under Section 306, IPC. It is in the statement of the widow of the deceased that the deceased husband always remained in a drunken condition. It is common knowledge that excessive drinking leads to one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25.07.1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. The Apex Court held that it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, who was responsible for his death. 12. In the instant case, there are two suicide notes, one dated 19.05.2005 addressed by the deceased to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and the another dated 20.05.2005 recovered from the pocket of the pant of the deceased. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted the English translations of these letters, which read as under:- “Shri Ramji 19.05.2005 The Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara. Sir, It is submitted that Shanker S/o Nandji Muggad (Jat) demanded a sum of Rs. 65,000/-against goods and the documents of my both tractor are with him. He threatened me against the service and earlier I served under him under fear. The party to whom I delivered material earlier, he threatened to recover the amount of Rs. Sir, It is submitted that Shanker S/o Nandji Muggad (Jat) demanded a sum of Rs. 65,000/-against goods and the documents of my both tractor are with him. He threatened me against the service and earlier I served under him under fear. The party to whom I delivered material earlier, he threatened to recover the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-from me and also told that he will not release the documents of the tractors which are with him. when he went Maharashtra, he managed to stand by both the tractors and as the result of this act on behalf of him I was put into the loss of Rs. 4,00,000/-. One my tractor bearing No. RSE 5953 was made stand by at Manmad and another tractor No. RJ 06-262 Mahindra made was also stand by at Manjar. I desposited Rs.1,00,000/-, in Bhilwara. It is the second incident that took place on 10.05.2005 when I was carrying Rs. 20,000/-cash within Bhilwara where I myself was lodged in Chandravilas Lodge for two days alone. On the third day one person met me in the lodge, made friendship with me and stayed three days with me. In the night of the third day he told me that it is hot and let us go to the terrace for sleeping. On the next day he got up early in the morning at 5 AM. He took out Rs. 19,000/-from by bag and ran away. When I got up at 7 AM on the day I found that the man has gone and while going he has closed the door. He told me that he is the member of the police force and came from Haryana and told his name as Vimal Sharma. Harji Lal Jat Sd/- (Ratan Lal Choudhary) Telephone No. 01483- 228684” “Ratan Lal S/o Mosal Ji Jat aged 44 years Village and Post Bhojras tehsil Hurda via. Ajahall Kala District Bhilwara (Raj.) Here I am under the debt and payment from the Maharashtra is not being materilised. I am compelled by the situation that I have two son and one daughter, my wife and two brothers and my father. My bag was in the lodge and the papers of the tractors bearing No. RJ 06 476 was left in the bag. This tractor was given to Bharat Singh for Rs. 1,10,000/-and Rs. 70,000/-are still due from him. I am compelled by the situation that I have two son and one daughter, my wife and two brothers and my father. My bag was in the lodge and the papers of the tractors bearing No. RJ 06 476 was left in the bag. This tractor was given to Bharat Singh for Rs. 1,10,000/-and Rs. 70,000/-are still due from him. He is not paying the due amount from last two months and avoiding the payment. Bharat Singh is the resident of village Udaliyas Sd/- (Ratan Lal Jat) The above letter was recovered from the pocket of the Ratan Lal Jat which was read over to him and the case is registered on 07.07.2005. Sd/-20.05.2005 P.S. Subhash Nagar, MGH Bhilwara.” 13. From a bare perusal of the contents of the aforesaid two suicide notes, one addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara and another recovered from the pocket of pant of the deceased, what transpires is that the deceased was perturbed and puzzled on account of financial crisis. From the contents of the letter dated 19.05.2005 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, it appears that the deceased was owed to the petitioner for Rs. 65,000/-, who kept the tractors papers with him. The petitioner was also demanding Rs. 2,00,000/-from the deceased towards the price of the goods sold by him. It has also been mentioned in this suicide note that one Vimal Sharma took away a sum of Rs. 19,000/-from his bag while he was staying at Chandravilas Lodge, Bhilwara. 14. In the suicide note dated 20.05.2005 recovered from the pant-pocket of the deceased, the deceased has mentioned that he was facing the problem of indebtedness, the credit money could not be recovered from Maharashtra and these were his problems. In this letter, he has also shown the details of his family members. There is also a mention in this letter that one Bharat Singh R/o Udaliyas had paid Rs. 1,10,000/-towards the price of the tractor sold to Bharat Singh but he is not paying the remaining amount of Rs. 70,000/-and avoiding payment for last two months. 15. Thus, from the perusal of these two suicide notes, it is clear that the deceased was perturbed and annoyed on account of financial hardships occurred on account of indebtedness, loss of Rs. 19,000/- in the hotel and non-payment of the balance amount of Rs. 70,000/-and avoiding payment for last two months. 15. Thus, from the perusal of these two suicide notes, it is clear that the deceased was perturbed and annoyed on account of financial hardships occurred on account of indebtedness, loss of Rs. 19,000/- in the hotel and non-payment of the balance amount of Rs. 70,000/-towards the sale price of tractor by one Bharat Singh R/o Udaliyas. The letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara is dated 19.05.2005 whereas the suicide note recovered from the pocket of the deceased is dated 20.05.2005. In the suicide note dated 20.05.2005, there is no specific mention of the name of the present petitioner, which instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even if the contents of the letter dated 19.05.2005 addressed to the Superintendent of Police are taken at their face value, it cannot be said that it was the petitioner who abetted the commission of such suicide. Thus, from the contents of the suicide notes, the ingredients for construing an offence under Section 306, IPC are not established against the petitioner. 16. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 011.2005, framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306, IPC, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 79/2005, is set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the offence under Section 306, IPC. Stay petition stands disposed of .