Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3475 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Nirmal Kaur

2016-12-13

T.P.S.MANN

body2016
JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J.: (Oral) - The order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Ambala, stands challenged by the State by filing the present revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. 2. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court discharged the respondents for committing the offence under Section 306 IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, Shri Jaibir Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt., recorded the statement of Jaspal Kaur, since deceased, on 7.8.2007, wherein, she stated that she was having a dispute regarding cable wire with her neighbour Nirmal Kaur, who used to maltreat her alongwith her two tenants, namely, Narinder Kaur and Kulwinder Kaur. On that day, at about 8.10 a.m., her husband had gone to his office whereafter, Nirmal Kaur picked up quarrel with her. Fed up with the same, Jaspal Kaur had consumed sulfas medicine. On the basis of the statement made by Jaspal Kaur, DDR No. 29 dated 7.8.2007 was registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar as no cognizable offence was made out by then. Subsequently, when Jaspal Kaur died on 15.8.2007 during her treatment at P.G.I., Chandigarh. FIR No. 175 was registered on that day under Sections 306/34 IPC against Nirmal Kaur and her tenants. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, this Court finds that in order to charge the accused for committing the offfence under Section 306 IPC, there must be an abetment on his part for commission of suicide by the victim. Merely because there used to remain altercation between the deceased and the accused for sometime and subsequently, the victim tried to commit suicide by consuming sulfas medicine which ultimately resulted in her death, will not be sufficient to hold that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide. Further, no sufficient material was collected by the Investigating Agency which could be prima facie sufficient for drawing an opinion that the act of the accused fell within the parameters of the offence under Section 306 IPC. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed.