Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 576 (JK)

Moti Ram v. State of J&K

2021-11-03

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2021
JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under section 561-A CrPC (now 482-CrPC) by the petitioners for quashing order dated 15.12.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court) by virtue of which the petitioners have been charged for commission of offence under section 306/34 RPC. 2. The order impugned has been assailed on the ground that there is not even an iota of evidence that at any point of time the petitioners had instigated the deceased or aided him in committing the suicide It is also urged that the suicide note of the deceased was incoherent which unmistakably shows that he was suffering from some mental disease marked by disconnection between thoughts, feelings and action as would be evident from the facts narrated in the very beginning of the suicide note and it demonstrates that the deceased was not a normal person and was rather having a split character. The petitioners in order to demonstrate the mental condition of the deceased, have placed on record certain letters allegedly written by the deceased. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present petition are that on 25.03.2012 an information was received on phone from Police Post, Hospital that one person namely, Prem Kumar S/o. Sansar Chand aged 28 years has been brought by some persons at Hospital and was stated to have hanged himself in his room with the ceiling fan and was brought down and taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead by Medical Officer. On receipt of this information, inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C were initiated and the post-mortem was conducted and thereafter body was handed over to the family for last rites. From the room of deceased during search, one diary, photographs and one suicide note were seized and after the perusal of the suicide note, FIR bearing No. 108/2012 was registered on 29.03.2012 for commission of offence under section 306 RPC against the petitioners at Police Station, Udhampur. 4. A perusal of the suicide note reveals that in the beginning of the suicide note, the deceased has addressed his mother and father with regard to his circumstances leading to his death and infact stated that he had not committed suicide but was killed. 4. A perusal of the suicide note reveals that in the beginning of the suicide note, the deceased has addressed his mother and father with regard to his circumstances leading to his death and infact stated that he had not committed suicide but was killed. In the subsequent part of the suicide note, he narrated that the petitioner No. 1 met him at the Railway Station and took him to his home where he was confined from 11 A.M to 8.30 P.M and during that period, the petitioner No. 1 threatened to kill him and his parents and petitioner No. 2, who is the wife of petitioner No. 1 gave him some medicines in the glass of milk due to which he started vomiting. He further stated that three attempts were made by the petitioners to kill him but every time he was saved. He further stated that he had put the vermilion at the head of petitioner No. 3 and also tied mangal sutra and took seven rounds with the petitioner No. 3 around the fire at Ziarat Peerbaba. It was known only to him and the petitioner No. 3. He did this because the petitioner No. 3 insisted for the same and that incident took place in the month of August, 2010 when he had returned from the Hyderabad. Thereafter they started living as husband and wife. None else other than the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who happen to be the parents of petitioner No.3 were instrumental in bringing the petitioner No. 3 and the deceased close to each other as they had been arranging the meetings between the petitioner No. 3 and deceased in the year 2009. They had given complete freedom to them that was why he and petitioner No. 3 used to reach Udhampur sometimes at 1200, sometimes at 11 PM and once 1.30 AM in the night at Udhampur. The petitioner No. 1 used to bring them from the Railway Station. Further he expressed regrets that petitioner No. 2, who is wife of petitioner No. 1, had maligned the pious word of mother, who in order to satisfy her lust did not even leave his son also. She crossed all the limits and by deceitful means called him to her home and locked him in one room. Further he expressed regrets that petitioner No. 2, who is wife of petitioner No. 1, had maligned the pious word of mother, who in order to satisfy her lust did not even leave his son also. She crossed all the limits and by deceitful means called him to her home and locked him in one room. She tried a lot to have relations with him but he did not allow her to succeed. In order to convince him, the petitioner No. 2 disclosed all of her extra martial affairs and only God knew how he escaped from there and she started calling him on phone secretly and when he used to pick up the phone, she used to talk like a lover not a mother. When he stopped her, she used to threaten him that she would destroy him. He did not disclose to anyone regarding that, as he could not have disclosed. When the petitioner No. 2 again resorted to her illicit activity then he disclosed the same to petitioner No. 3 but the petitioner No. 3 told him not to disclose the same to petitioner No. 1 as he would die after hearing that. Therefore, he kept that as a secret with him. He trusted the petitioner No. 3 very much but she too betrayed his trust. He was hurt inside after realizing that the petitioner No. 3 had married him for some purpose. She maligned their secret relationship. One person called him 3 to 4 times and started threatening and blackmailing him. He was disheartened when the said person disclosed that he was having the details of their stayings in the hotels and also the photographs and videos of the physical relationship between the petitioner No. 3 and the deceased. He also received one letter having the details of stayings in the different hotels and there were threats also in the letter that they were having the videos of physical relations of petitioner No 3 and the deceased. He tried to ascertain as to how others were having the knowledge of their secrets but could not succeed. A doubt was created in his mind that the friend of petitioner No. 3 were in fact calling him for the purpose of eliminating him from her life. He was disheartened because of the conduct of the petitioner No. 3 that she played with his life. A doubt was created in his mind that the friend of petitioner No. 3 were in fact calling him for the purpose of eliminating him from her life. He was disheartened because of the conduct of the petitioner No. 3 that she played with his life. The petitioners could have told him to get out from their lives. It was the petitioner No. 3 who herself, had come after him. Thereafter the deceased stated in the note that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 tried to kill him on 04.03.2012. By deceitful means, he was called and locked in one room. He was beaten and threatened that in the event he disclosed anything that he and petitioner No. 3 were residing as husband and wife and they remained together at Hotels in Katra and Jammu and also with regard to the taking of the money by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 regarding which he had mentioned in his diary, then they would kill him. When he resisted he was beaten and thereafter he was made to drink one glass having medicines and thereafter he started vomiting. At around 8.45 PM, he was left at Adarsh Colony so that he may not die in their house. Thereafter the deceased stated that he never took any action against them as he was a man of constructive mind and he never caused any loss to anyone. In the last, he had pleaded that his photo album, one novel and his poetry that was lying with the petitioner No. 3, be recovered from petitioner No.3. 5. Besides this suicide note, the prosecution has also recorded the statement of parents of the deceased as well. 6. Ms. Garima Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the petitioners at any point of time instigated the deceased to commit suicide. She further laid a stress that there is a gap of 20 days from the date as alleged by the prosecution when the deceased was allegedly harassed by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 so the suicide committed by the deceased was not proximate to the act as alleged on the part of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 so the petitioners are required to be discharged. 1 and 2 so the suicide committed by the deceased was not proximate to the act as alleged on the part of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 so the petitioners are required to be discharged. She further argued that the deceased was a having a split personality and merely on the basis of the suicide note, no charges can be framed against the petitioners. 7. On the contrary, Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG vehemently argued that the mere perusal of the suicide note reveals that the deceased was treated in such a manner by the petitioners that he got fed up with his life and committed a suicide. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. The contents of suicide note are self-explanatory regarding the conduct of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The statement of PW Sansar Chand, who is father of the deceased has stated that on 04.03.2012, his son had come at 10 PM and his hair were scattered and he continued to vomit during the whole night and he disclosed that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted him and snatched his phone and made him drink some medicines. He also came to know that petitioner No. 1 had taken some money from Prem Kumar-deceased and Prem Kumar was often threatened by him. 10. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605 , the Apex Court has considered the necessary essentials of the section 306 IPC and has held as under: 19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [ (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [ (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088], where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an “instigation” may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation. 25. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. For this limited purpose, the court may sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at the initial stage to accept as gospel truth all that the prosecution states. At this stage, the court has to consider the material only with a view to find out if there is ground for “presuming” that the accused has committed an offence and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction. (See Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya [ (1990) 4 SCC 76 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 47].)” 11. From the material placed on record by the prosecution, the only allegation against the petitioner No. 3 is that the deceased was having impression that she betrayed the trust posed by the deceased in him and he was having a doubt that perhaps the petitioner No. 3 had given the photographs as well as videos of his physical relationship with her to some other persons who were blackmailing him. There is no material on record other than the above against the petitioner No. 3 as such no act/omission is forthcoming on the part of petitioner No. 3 that she at any point of time instigated the deceased to commit suicide, but so far as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, there is ample evidence on record of continuous harassment and threats advanced to the deceased on their part. The incident of 04.03.2012 reveals that both petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 administered beating to deceased and made him drink some medicines as a result of which, he started vomiting. PW Sansar Chand has stated that during whole night, the deceased continue to vomit. He further stated that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were threatening the deceased. 12. So far as contention of petitioners 1 and 2 that the suicide of the deceased was not proximate to the date of alleged incident that occurred on 04.03.2012 is of no consequence at this stage, particularly in view of the statement made by the parents of the deceased. The other contention that the deceased was not having normal state of mind cannot be appreciated as the same is the defence of the petitioners and documents placed on record also cannot be considered at this stage. The court cannot hold mini trial while considering the issue of charge/discharge and the issues raised by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are matter of trial. The trial court has not considered the issue as to whether there is any evidence against the petitioner No. 3, that can be translated into evidence during the trial, as such the order to the extent of framing of charge against the petitioner No: 3 is not sustainable. 13. For all what has been discussed above, the order dated 15.12.2014 qua petitioner No. 3 is set aside, as such, the petitioner No. 3 is discharged, whereas order of framing of charge regarding the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for commission of offence under section 306/34 RPC is concerned, the same is upheld and the instant petition to that extent is dismissed. 14. The petition is disposed of accordingly.