Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1478 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Shyam Lal

2022-05-09

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. Mr. Shreyash Ramdev, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the complainant-petitioner (in Revision Petition No.66/2001) under the free legal aid scheme of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority as per the rules. 3. The assailment in the present revision petitions – by the State and the complainant, respectively -preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is common. 3.1 Both the instant petitions have been preferred seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.88/2000, whereby the accused-respondents were discharged, at the stage of framing of charges, of the offence under Section 306 IPC, for which they were charged. 4. The bone of contention in the present case is the suicide committed by one Ajay Kumar on 31.01.2000, under the alleged mental torture and harassment on the part of his wife and in-laws, on one pretext or the other; accordingly, a report was submitted by one Kishan Lal Tailor (complainant/petitioner herein) on 24.02.2000 before the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara which culminated into registration of a case for the offence under Section 306 IPC and the necessary investigation; the accused-respondents were charged for the said offence. However, the learned trial court vide the impugned order dated 28.11.2000, discharged the accused-respondents of the criminal charge, as above. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of petitioner-State as well as learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that the deceased-victim Ajay Kumar was married to accused-respondent Shashi Kala, and immediately thereafter, she went to her parents house at Bhilwara; many a times, the in-laws of the deceased-victim pressurized him to leave his village and reside at Bhilwara, failing which, the deceased-victim was threatened of dire consequences, viz., false implication of the deceased-victim and his family into a criminal case; under such threat however, the deceased victim went to Bhilwara, where he resided in a rented premises alongwith his wife (accused-Shashi Kala) for about a year. As per learned counsel, during such period, the in-laws of the deceased-victim kept on demanding Rs.30,000/-, it was also told that in case the deceased-victim fails to fulfill such demand, the same would result into false implication of the deceased-victim and his family members. 5.1 Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the deceased-victim left Bhilwara and went to resident in Badnor, where he used to earn his livelihood by doing the work as labourer; however, despite that, the demand of Rs.30,000/- and ornaments, and the otherwise threatening on the part of the accused-respondents continued; at one point of time i.e. 27.01.2000 and 30.01.2000, the deceased-victim was called by his in-laws at Bhilwara, where on count of non-fulfillment of the aforesaid demand, the accused-respondents locked the deceased-victim in a room and also subjected him to immense humiliation and harassment, followed by reiteration of the aforesaid demand, and the consequential threat in case of non-fulfillment of such demand. 5.2 Learned counsel thus, submits that under such compelling circumstances, wherein the deceased-victim was subjected to immense threat, humiliation, harassment and mental torture by the accused-respondents, the deceased-victim extinguished his life-spark by committing suicide. 5.3 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that though in the note written by the deceased, preceding the date of the suicide, there was no mention of Rs.30,000/-, demand whereof had been made from the deceased-Ajay Kumar (victim) by his in-laws, nor there was a mention of any harassment having been caused to him by his in-laws, but whatever evidence has come on record before the learned trial court, made it clear that the said amount was certainly demanded by the in-laws of the deceased-victim; the evidence also shows that for fulfilling the said demand, the deceased-victim borrowed such amount from many persons, but the purpose of such borrowing was not disclosed by the deceased-victim, out of hesitation. As per learned Public Prosecutor, the factum of such borrowing was substantiated by the contents of the diary written by the deceased-victim, wherein he had mentioned the names of one Gautam Chand and other persons, from whom deceased-victim borrowed money, to be given to his in-laws. As per learned Public Prosecutor, the factum of such borrowing was substantiated by the contents of the diary written by the deceased-victim, wherein he had mentioned the names of one Gautam Chand and other persons, from whom deceased-victim borrowed money, to be given to his in-laws. 5.4 Learned counsel thus submits that without due appreciation of the evidence placed before it and without taking into consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the abetment/instigation, on the part of the accused-respondents, in commission of the suicide by the deceased-victim, the learned trial court vide the impugned order discharged the accused-respondents, and hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-respondents submits that following the alleged suicide by the deceased-victim on 31.01.2000, the police conducted the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in the presence of his family members and the complainant himself, but as on that day, no report was lodged by the complainant; it was only after expiry of a long period of 24 days from the date of the alleged suicide, the report in question was lodged by the complainant in connection with the alleged suicide; if the contents of the report are read and interpreted as it is, then also no case for abetment in commission of the alleged suicide can be made out against the accused-respondents. 6.1 Learned counsel further submits that as per the suicide note written by the deceased-victim, he was very affectionate towards his wife and he admired her as well, though he was having a grievance that his father-in-law, did not let the deceased-victim’s wife to visit and stay with him; further, as per the said note, the deceased-victim got frustrated with the ongoing litigation between him and the other concerned parties. 6.2 Learned counsel thus submits that the suicide note, as aforementioned, does not indicate anything which could connect the present accused-respondents with the alleged suicide, more particularly, any abetment on their part in commission of the incident of suicide. 6.2 Learned counsel thus submits that the suicide note, as aforementioned, does not indicate anything which could connect the present accused-respondents with the alleged suicide, more particularly, any abetment on their part in commission of the incident of suicide. Learned counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that the pre-requisite for saddling any criminal liability against any person, there must be a direct connection between the abetment and the suicide; in the present case, the prosecution clearly failed to prove and establish any such connection against the accused-respondents herein, and thus, on that basis, the learned trial court has discharged the accused-respondents from the offence under Section 306 IPC. 6.3 Learned counsel thus submits that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order of discharge in favour of the accused-respondents after a careful and detailed consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with due appreciation of each and every aspect of the case and the evidence placed on record, as per its necessity, at the stage of framing of charge. Thus, as per learned counsel the present petitions being devoid of any substance, deserve dismissal by this Court. 6.4 After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned trial court has made due appreciation, to the extent required at the stage of framing of charging, of the evidence placed on record, before passing the impugned order of discharge against the present accused-respondents. 6.5 This Court finds that the learned trial court, as per the settled principle of law, applied the prima facie test, before passing the impugned order, while finding the case to be tilting in favour of the accused-respondents. The learned trial court has strengthened its findings by cogent reasons, viz. compromise between the husband and wife, followed by their going to watch a movie, few days prior to the alleged suicide, the deceased being affectionate towards his wife (as reflected from the suicide note); no evidence regarding any presence of any cogent reason so as to compel the deceased to commit suicide, more particularly, under the abetment having been extended by the accused-respondents. This Court also finds that the learned trial court has rightly found that there was no evidence available on record so as to connect the alleged abetment on the part of the accused-respondents with the incident of suicide in question. 7. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.