Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 93 (RAJ)

Sangita W/o Sandeep Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-15

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2024
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Instant criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by which the trial court framed the charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a written report before the S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali, District Jaisalmer to the effect that deceased Sandeep Kumar was married to petitioner on 15.02.2015. It was alleged that petitioner Sangita and her family members used to harass Sandeep Kumar. It was also alleged that petitioner Sangita was having extra marital affairs with distinct persons and being distressed, Sandeep Kumar committed suicide on 31.07.2019. It was also alleged that before committing suicide, the deceased left a suicide note giving reference of petitioner and her family members. 3. On this report, the police registered FIR No. 306/2019. However, after investigation, the police filed a negative FR that no case is made out against the accused Sangita. However, after receiving the FSL report, the police filed chargesheet against the present petitioner before the competent court and after arguments on charge, charges were framed against the petitioners for aforesaid offence. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was serving in Army and resided separately in Army quarters whereas, the petitioner used to reside at her parents house. It is further argued that the army officials did not find any suicide note from the quarters and same was provided to the police by the family members of deceased. It is submitted that the police after thorough investigation had filed negative FR with cogent reasons and it was also mentioned in the FR that the deceased was having illicit relationship with one Pooja. Further a perusal of the alleged suicide note would go to show that no allegation whatsoever was made against the petitioner before putting his signature, however, after putting signature, three lines were added in suicide note mentioning that he is upset with the petitioner and her family members and they should be punished. It is argued that these three lines were written in different ink which shows manipulation. It is argued that these three lines were written in different ink which shows manipulation. It is also argued that even in the FSL report, it has been mentioned that first part of the suicide note writing and signature marked as Q1 and Q2 shows similarities with standard signatures, however, there is no report with regard to three lines mentioned at the bottom which is marked as Q3 and Q4. Thus, the FSL report is silent with regard to the writing marked Q3 and Q4. Therefore, it is argued that there is no evidence whatsoever against the present petitioner for abetment to commit suicide, therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not at all made out against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shabbir Hussain vs. State of M.P. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7284/2017 dated 26.07.2021 and case of State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu and Others, (2019) 10 SCC 188 . 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant argued that the trial court after considering the entire evidence as well as statements of witnesses rightly framed charges against the petitioner. It is argued that so far as the FSL report is concerned, it is submitted that the suicide note was sent to FSL and it has been mentioned in the FSL report that the disputed writing and signatures Q1 and Q2 shows similarity with the standard signatures and writing. If there is no mention with regard to writing Q3 and Q4, it does not mean that the writing was dissimilar. It is argued that the entire suicide note was examined by the FSL and a report was given. Further, the fact of harassment by petitioner is evident from the fact that the petitioner had filed FIR against the father of deceased and the police after investigation submitted FR. However, the petitioner was continuously harassing the husband and his family members due to which the husband of petitioner committed suicide, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 6. I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully considered the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that after thorough investigation, the police had filed negative FR in this case. 6. I have heard rival contention of the parties and carefully considered the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that after thorough investigation, the police had filed negative FR in this case. The investigating officer on the basis of call details found that there was illicit relationship between the deceased and one Pooja. However, later on after receiving the FSL report, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner. This is also not in dispute that the deceased who was serving in military was residing separately in Army quarters. Now coming to suicide note, a persual of the suicide note would go to show that no specific allegation has been levelled by the deceased against the present petitioner. It is only in the last three lines at the bottom, after putting his signatures, the fact of he being upset with the petitioner and her family members has been mentioned in a different ink. In the letter sent to the Forensic Science laboratory by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer, although separate opinion was sought with regard to handwriting marked Q1 to Q2 as well as Q3 to Q4, but the FSL report is silent regarding writing marked Q3 to Q4. 8. Be that as it may, even in the light of alleged suicide note, it has to be seen whether the ingredients of offence as above is available against the petitioner in this case. For ready reference, it is relevant to quote Section 306 IPC which reads as under: “306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 9. Chapter V of the IPC has elaboration of abetment and Section 107 of the same, may be looked into to understand as to what would be an abetment of a thing. Section 107 IPC is extracted, as herein-below: “107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. 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. 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. Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.” 10. The ingredients of Section 306 Indian Penal Code have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 which reads as under: “The act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, Accused cannot be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code.” 11. A perusal of the suicide note would go to show that the deceased has only mentioned that he was upset with the petitioner and her family members. In the opinion of this court, as per well settled proposition of law, in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband/wife treated the deceased spouse with cruelty so also the word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case this Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. Besides, the judgment also observed that each person's suicidability pattern is different from the other and each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. 13. In case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190 , Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC and observed as under: “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. 13. In case of S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190 , Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the ingredients of offence of Section 306 IPC and observed as under: “25. 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.” 14. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and Others vs. The Inspector of Police, AIR 2022 SC 4994 observed as under: “This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an Accused Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the Accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable.” 15. Hon’ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023) dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under: “9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Hon’ble Apex Court in another case of Mohit Singhal vs. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 3578/2023) dated 01.12.2023 has observed as under: “9. In the facts of the case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide.” 16. Thus, it is clear that a person can be said to have instigated another person, when he actively suggests or stimulates him by means of language, direct or indirect. Instigate means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. In the present case, even if the allegations as contained in the FIR and statements of the witnesses are taken as it is, even then it cannot be said that petitioner has instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 17. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that trial court has committed an error in framing charge for offence under Section 306 IPC against the petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Sessions Case No. 37/2022 (07/2022) framing charge for offence under Section 306 IPC is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is discharged from the said offence. 18. The stay petition also stands disposed of.