Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 240 (JK)

State (Now UT) of J. &K. v. Suram Singh

2023-06-09

MOHD.AKRAM CHOWDHARY

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J.) : 1. Through the medium of this judgment, it is proposed to decide the above titled criminal revision petition against the order dated 28.10.2010 ('impugned order') passed by the court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Reasi ('Trial Court') in Sessions Trial Case No. 32/2010 titled 'State v. Suram Singh & Ors.' arising out of FIR No. 79/2010 registered at Police Station Reasi for the commission of offence punishable U/S 306 RPC. 2. Vide impugned order, the trial court had discharged all the accused from the charge of commission of offences U/S 306 RPC. The prosecution case was that one Shamsher Singh S/o Lachman Singh R/o Kolsar had attempted suicide on 04.05.2010 by consuming some poisonous substance, became unconscious and succumbed at Reasi Hospital as he was chased by the respondents for having abducted their daughter Babli Devi. 3. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner-State on the following grounds: "a. That the order impugned is contrary to law, against the facts of the case and has been passed without appreciating the legal position on the matter and needs to be set-aside. b. That the learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the material in the shape of documentary as well as oral evidence and the statements of the important witnesses which are yet to be recorded by the learned Trial Court while passing the order impugned. c. That the prosecution had established the case against the respondents/accused by adducing documentary, as well as oral evidence which in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to guilt the respondents but the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the law and facts of the case while discharging them. d. That the trial court has taken hyper technical approach. The direct and circumstantial evidence have sufficiently proved the guilt of the respondents/accused. The order on this count is liable to be set-aside." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State argued that the Trial court has passed the impugned order in a perfunctory manner and the respondents, who had been accused of a heinous offences of committing abetment to suicide wherein a precious life had been lost, decided the case without putting the same to trial and the respondents/accused were discharged from the commission of the offences punishable U/S 306 RPC without any valid and legal reasons. He has further argued that the prosecution had placed on record sufficient evidence to connect the accused 'prima facie' with the commission of the offence punishable U/S 306 RPC as almost all the witnesses had stated that deceased, on being challenged and threatened of his life and after recovery of Babli Devi, who had been abducted by him from a Jungle, got so frightened that out of this fear psychosis, he committed the suicide by consuming poison. As such, accused should have been chargesheeted for the commission of the aforesaid offence and the prosecution should have been allowed to prove its case to bring home the charge against the respondents. He has finally argued that the impugned order be set-aside directing the trial court to chargesheet the accused so that they may be brought to justice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the impugned order has been passed perfectly in consonance with law as the reason for the deceased to commit suicide cannot be, in any manner, assigned to the respondents. The only accusation against the respondents is that the deceased who was alleged to have kidnapped his younger sister-in-law against her will pressurizing her to marry him, knowing fully well that his wife was attending their ailing son who had been hospitalized at Reasi Hospital was chased by them. The deceased had brought a bad name to the family of the respondents having kidnapped their daughter that too by her own brother in law, and that as per the statement of the abductee the deceased at the time of her abduction had told her that he was having poison with him and in case she does not go with him, he would kill himself by consuming poison and she shall also be killed and that at the time when she and the deceased were cordoned off by the respondents, in her search in Jungle, she had told the respondents that the deceased was having poison with him and he would kill himself and the same thing happened. However, the act on the part of the deceased cannot be attributed in any manner to the respondents to have abetted him in the commission of the offence. However, the act on the part of the deceased cannot be attributed in any manner to the respondents to have abetted him in the commission of the offence. As such, the Trial Court has passed a very reasoned order discharging all the respondents from the charge of abetting suicide of the deceased and the same does not require any interference by this court while exercising revisional powers and prayed that revision petition be dismissed. 6. Heard, perused the record and considered. 7. The prosecution case is that on 04.05.2010 it was learnt from reliable source that one Shamsher Singh (hereinafter called the deceased) who was involved in the kidnapping of one Babli Devi D/o Krishan Singh R/o Talwara was taking her towards Kolsar after abducting her and that her legal heirs were following him who tortured him to such an extent that he consumed some poisonous substance and as a result expired at Reasi Hospital. 8. On the basis of this information, a case was registered vide FIR No. 79/2010 at P/S Reasi for the commission of offence punishable U/S 306 RPC. During investigation, it was found that close relatives of the kidnapped girl i.e. Suram Singh, Sansar Singh, Jagdev Singh, Daleep Singh, Anant Ram, Baldev Singh and Savitri Devi had started search for their kidnapped girl Babli Devi and when the deceased saw them following him in the forest where he had hidden himself, had also apprehended the kidnapped girl, and he was challenged by them calling him loudly that 'where are you going, we will not take rest until we do away with you, you have brought disrepute to us'. The deceased under threat consumed the poison and while running fell into a Nallah, wherefrom he was removed and shifted to hospital where he breathed his last. Based on the investigation, charge sheet was laid against all the respondents/accused for the commission of aforementioned offence. 9. The Trial Court at the stage of charge/discharge, in terms of Section 268/269 J&K CrPC for sessions trial, vide impugned order discharged all the accused from the commission of the offences as it was found that there was no ' prima facie' case to frame charge against them, based on prosecution evidence. 9. The Trial Court at the stage of charge/discharge, in terms of Section 268/269 J&K CrPC for sessions trial, vide impugned order discharged all the accused from the commission of the offences as it was found that there was no ' prima facie' case to frame charge against them, based on prosecution evidence. All the circumstances show that the deceased had abducted the daughter of the accused party, was running away with her, and on being intercepted and seen by the accused, he could not himself face the situation because of the critical nature of the relationship between him and the kidnapped girl which has no sanction in the society and he being a person given to liquor was also socially timid to face the society and ended his life in these circumstances. 10. The kidnapped girl had stated that on the day of occurrence she was taken by the deceased with him to his home thereafter at some other places which were isolated and committed rape upon her and he used to tell her that he would marry her. The son of her sister who happens to be wife of the deceased was ill and was hospitalized and despite that he had allured her and committed rape upon her for eight days and lastly, took her to the house of his aunt telling her that he has brought Rs. 16600/- and ornaments of his wife. Deceased had a nuvan bottle with him and threatened her that in case she does not agree to marry him he would administer the same to her and also himself consume it and end his life and that of her also, neither she nor he will survive. 11. It appears that the deceased was a person suffering from depravity who had, for his sexual lust despite his son being hospitalized, kidnapped his real sister-in-law and kept her with him for about eight days at different locations, intending to marry her and had also, in the meanwhile, subjected her to rape. 11. It appears that the deceased was a person suffering from depravity who had, for his sexual lust despite his son being hospitalized, kidnapped his real sister-in-law and kept her with him for about eight days at different locations, intending to marry her and had also, in the meanwhile, subjected her to rape. It was natural for the family of the abducted girl that they would have launched a manhunt to search for their abducted daughter and her abductor as both of them were found in some Jungle and on recovery of their daughter they may have threatened for his conduct being a kidnapper of his own sister-in-law but this is required to be seen as to whether such a threat or aggression shown on their part towards the deceased would come within the ambit of abetment so as to abet the deceased to have committed suicide. 12. The trial court relying upon many judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts observed that the instigation should act as a goad for the deceased to commit suicide and merely because the deceased committed suicide will not make the accused liable unless they had an intention that by their act the deceased would commit suicide, therefore there is a distinction between the fact being the cause of suicide and abetment of suicide. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case Ram Sia Ram v. State of U.P., reported as 1975 CriLJ 240 held that, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have 'intentionally, aided the commission of crime, mere proof that a crime could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107 of the Penal Code. Intentionally aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under Section 107 IPC which defines the abetment. The conduct of the deceased in this case to have kidnapped his own sister-in-law in presence of her wife cannot be said to be a normal conduct. Therefore, commission of suicide by him cannot be inferred on the basis of the evidence that he had committed suicide only due to threats by the respondents who were expected to search for their abducted daughter and recovered her from his illegal captivity as he was stated to have committed sexual offences against her. 14. Therefore, commission of suicide by him cannot be inferred on the basis of the evidence that he had committed suicide only due to threats by the respondents who were expected to search for their abducted daughter and recovered her from his illegal captivity as he was stated to have committed sexual offences against her. 14. Suicide is not an offence, obviously because the person that committed suicide is not available to undergo the trial and punishment. Section 306 IPC from the historical background seems to have been intended to cover cases of people instigating a Hindu widow to commit 'Sati' i.e. wife burning herself in the funeral pyre of her husband, which was prevalent at that time. When suicides by married women, due to harassment by their husbands and in-laws increased in an alarming proportion in the country, obviously finding that the provisions in the IPC is not covering such suicides, the Parliament stepped in and in the year 1983, introduced Section 498-A in IPC and Section 113-A in the Evidence Act, enabling courts to draw a presumption of abetment to commit suicide by the wife, if the husband and his relatives subjected her to cruelty within 7 years of her marriage. Subsequently, Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of Evidence Act also were introduced. Therefore, now, in case a married woman commits suicide, within 7 years of her marriage due to harassment by her husband or his relatives by virtue of Section 113-A of Evidence Act, only Section 306 IPC would come into operation, but not otherwise. 15. As per Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, a person abets of doing of a thing when he does any of the acts mentioned in the following three clauses: (i) instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. So far as the first two clauses are concerned, it is not necessary that the offence instigated should have been committed. However, for clause (iii), it is clear that when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in order to make such aiding an offence. So far as the first two clauses are concerned, it is not necessary that the offence instigated should have been committed. However, for clause (iii), it is clear that when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in order to make such aiding an offence. In other words, unlike the first two clauses, the third clause applies to a case where the offence is committed. 16. In Alka Grewal v. State of MP reported as 2000 CriLJ 672, the woman was held to be not guilty of an offence U/S 306 IPC, for her husband committing suicide, after feeling insulted and humiliated due to her immoral conduct by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The court specifically held that though she may be the cause for suicide of her husband, she cannot be said to have abetted his suicide. The Apex Court in Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. reported as 1996 CriLJ 894 held that merely because the deceased woman stated in her dying declaration that she was harassed by the accused, the accused cannot be held guilty of an offence U/S 306 IPC. 17. From the facts of the case and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, it appears that the recovery of the kidnapped girl from the deceased by her family consisting of the respondents may have been a cause for the deceased to have committed suicide either for the reason of disgrace or having the feeling of losing the abductee from his clutches, however, the conduct of the respondents, in any way, cannot be attributed to be an abetment coming within the instigation as defined under section 107 of the IPC. 18. Since there is no averment in the charge sheet, or material on record, to show that respondents/accused, either induced the deceased to commit suicide or aided the suicide of the deceased, they are not liable to be charge sheeted for an offence U/S 306 IPC. 19. The Trial court, in the considered opinion of this court, had rightly decided the case by holding that there was no 'prima facie' case to frame charge against the accused for the commission of offence under section 306 RPC and discharged all of them. The impugned order passed by the Trial court is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this court. The impugned order passed by the Trial court is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this court. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion and observations made hereinabove, the revision petition is found to be bereft of any merit and substance and is accordingly dismissed. Impugned order is thus upheld. 20. Trial court record along with copy of this judgment shall be sent down for information and record.