Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 318 (RAJ)

Shyam Singh Ajmera v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-25

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition aggrieved by order dated 11.12.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the Court below has allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 and has taken cognizance against the present petitioners for offence under Section 306 I.P.C. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No.1 Shyam Singh Ajmera, aged 72 years is father of Shailendra Singh; Phool Singh Ajmera, aged 70 years and Ashwini Ajmera aged 68 years are uncles of Shailendra Singh. 3. It is contended that deceased committed suicide on 29.01.2009. Shailendra Singh was married on 25.11.2009. Shailendra Singh has now expired on 28.12.2015. As per the suicide note, the allegations against present petitioners are that they used to trouble the deceased. It is contended that Police after due investigation submitted negative final report against the present petitioners. From the evidence adduced before the Court below, there was no material as such to allow the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 Apex Court in " Ram Pal Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 765 " has held that complicity is pre-requirement for invoking the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 and the jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. 4. It is also contended that even assuming that the allegations levelled by the deceased were correct, the same merely points out that she was troubled by the petitioner who are all about 70 years of age. 5. It is contended that son of petitioner No.1 and nephew of petitioners No.2 and 3 who is Shailendrer Singh was married two months prior to the commission of suicide. Hence, there was no question of petitioners troubling the deceased. It is also contended that suicide note is doubtful, as the handwriting expert has not submitted a report that the handwriting is 100 percent similar to the handwriting of the deceased. 6. It is also contended that even if the suicide note is believed it would not amount to abetment of offence under Section 107 of I.P.C. and offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is not made out. 7. Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the present Criminal Revision Petition. 6. It is also contended that even if the suicide note is believed it would not amount to abetment of offence under Section 107 of I.P.C. and offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is not made out. 7. Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the present Criminal Revision Petition. Counsel for the complainant has contend that there is evidence before the Court below that petitioner used to harass and threaten the deceased and used to tell her to sleep with Shailendra. 8. Counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on "Rampal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr." (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that if complicity is clear, the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 are invoked. Reliance has also been placed on "Nishan Singh vs. State of Punjab" 2008-09 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 570, wherein specific role was assigned to the accused. Apex Court held that requirement of Sub-Section 4 of Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 is complied with. 9. I have considered the contentions. 10. The Trial Court while allowing the application has placed reliance on the suicide note and that is the main reason assigned in the order for taking cognizance against the petitioners. 11. To my mind for constituting an offence under Section 306 I.P.C., there has to be some abetment. Mere assertions in the suicide note that these three aged persons used to trouble the deceased cannot be said to constitute abetment. Moreover, the son of petitioner No.1 was married two months prior to the commission of suicide. There is thus no question of petitioners troubling the deceased. The complicity and involvement of the accused should be clear, as powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 are to be exercised in rare cases and only when the involvement is clearly established. 12. In the present case in hand, from the suicide note, it is also revealed that deceased mentioned that her last rites should be performed by Shailendra. She wanted the same as she wanted Shailendra to realize that he should not harass any girl and that harassing a girl may result in death of that girl. 13. Admittedly, prior to the commission of suicide by the deceased, Shailendra was already married two months back. Shailendra has now expired. She wanted the same as she wanted Shailendra to realize that he should not harass any girl and that harassing a girl may result in death of that girl. 13. Admittedly, prior to the commission of suicide by the deceased, Shailendra was already married two months back. Shailendra has now expired. This Court is of the view that it was not proper for the Court below to proceed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., 1973 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the material available was not pointing out towards commission of offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The Criminal Revision Petition therefore deserves to be allowed. 15. The present Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the Court below is quashed and set-aside. Stay application stands disposed.