Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2002 (RAJ)

Santosh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-28

SABINA

body2018
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J. - Vide this order above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of. 2. Petitioners have filed these petitions under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIR No. 251/2018 registered at Police Station Hindaun City, District Karauli for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 336 & 354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') Later on Sections 143, 149, 452, 504, 506 & 306 I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. can be said to be made out in the facts of the present case. FIR was lodged by the deceased herself on 7.4.2018 with regard to incident dated 4.4.2018. Vimlesh committed suicide on 7.4.2018 after lodging the FIR. There could be said to be no instigation at the hands of the petitioners/accused to have abetted the commission of suicide by deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JT 2010 (8) 331 in case of Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr., wherein it was held as under:- "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 4. Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 327 in case of Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , wherein it was held as under:- "Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide." 5. Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2011 SC 1238 in case of M. Mohan vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police , wherein it was held as under:- "In the instant case, what to talk of instances of instigation, there are even no allegations against the appellants. There is also no proximate link between the incident of 14.1.2005 when the deceased was denied permission to use the Qualis car with the factum of suicide which had taken place on 18.1.2005. Undoubtedly, the deceased had died because of hanging. The deceased was undoubtedly hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. In a joint family, instances of this kind are not very uncommon. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from person to person. Each individual has his own idea of self esteem and self-respect. Different people behave differently in the same situation. It is unfortunate that such an episode of suicide had taken place in the family. But the question remains to be answered is whether the appellants can be connected with that unfortunate incident in any manner?" 6. Learned state counsel who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant has opposed the petitions. Learned state counsel has further submitted that the case is being impartially investigated by the Investigating Agency. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the deceased felt humiliated as her modesty had been outraged by the accused and the fact that justice had not been done to her as one of the accused is a police constable. 8. FIR was lodged on 7.4.2018 and the lodger of the FIR Vimlesh committed suicide on 7.4.2018 by consuming some poisonous substance. 8. FIR was lodged on 7.4.2018 and the lodger of the FIR Vimlesh committed suicide on 7.4.2018 by consuming some poisonous substance. As per the prosecution story, deceased had committed suicide on account of humiliation suffered by her. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.4.2018 at about 8.30 a.m. accused had entered the house of the complainant and had dragged her husband out of the house after giving beatings to him. Modesty of the complainant was outraged by the accused. However, deceased managed to rush inside the house, but the accused pelted stones at the complainant party and abused them and threatened them. However, police did not take any action. One of the accused is a police constable. 9. Section 107 I.P.C. reads as under:- "Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who- (First) - Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." 10. Thus, as per the above provision whoever instigates or aids or facilitates the commission of an act is said to have abetted the commission of the offence. So far as the present case is concerned, the investigation of the case is still going on. Thus, as per the above provision whoever instigates or aids or facilitates the commission of an act is said to have abetted the commission of the offence. So far as the present case is concerned, the investigation of the case is still going on. Allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. As per the prosecution story, accused have given beatings to the complainant and her husband and had outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant committed suicide on account of humiliation felt by her at the hands of the accused and the fact that she had failed to get justice as one of the accused is a police constable. 11. Since, the case is still under investigation, at this stage, no ground to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold is made out. 12. There is no quarrel with regard to the preposition of law laid down vide the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but the same fail to advance the case of the petitioners as they are based on different facts. 13. Dismissed. 14. However, with the consensus of the learned counsel for the parties, investigation of the case is directed to be conducted under the supervision of Inspector General of Police,