Delhi District Court
The State vs Jai Prakash on 16 September, 2014
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL:
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE -5 (NORTH),
ROHINI , DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. : 80/14
UID NO. : 02404R0171632011
FIR No : 458/2007
P. S : Bawana
u/s : 306 IPC
The State versus Jai Prakash
S/O Ram Kishan
R/O Panna Bitrolla, Village Bawana,
Delhi- 39
Date of committal to session court : 30.06.2011
Date of argument : 16.09.2014
Date of order : 16.09.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case, as per the story of the prosecution are that, on 23.8.2007 at about 03:00 pm a message was received at P.S Bawana regarding suicide by hanging at Harijan Basti, Bawana, Delhi . The said information was reduced into DD no. 11 A dated 23.08.2007. On receipt of said DD no.11 A, S.I Shri Bhagwan along with Ct. Vinod SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 1 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC Kumar reached at House No. B 44, Harijan Basti. One room in that house was found bolted from inside. Suresh brother of the deceased broke open the door of said room and found Ramesh Chand(deceased) hanging with a rope from ceiling fan. S.I Shri Bahgwan also found a shirt hanging on peg(khunti). On checking the shirt it was found containing a suicide note. Brother of the deceased told them that it was in the handwriting of his brother Ramesh Chand (deceased). The suicide note was seized. Dead body was taken down from the ceiling fan and the rope was converted into a parcel and sealed and seized. Dead body of Ramesh Chand was sent for postmortem and after postmortem it was handed over to his relatives.
2. It is the case of prosecution that Ramesh Chand (deceased) had borrowed a sum of Rs 30,000/- from accused Jai Prakash out of which Rs 28000/- were already returned to him but despite that accused Jai Prakash kept on demanding Rs 58000/- from Ramesh Chand(deceased). Ramesh Chand had told this fact to his father Budh Singh and brother Naresh Kumar . It is alleged that one day prior to the incident, Ramesh Chand(deceased) had told his brother that accused Jai SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 2 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC Prakash is pressurizing him by saying "agar tu paise nahin de sakta toh marr kyu nahin jaata" and asking the money back.
3. It is further case of prosecution that on 22.8.2007, at about 7:00 pm , accused Jai Prakash had come to the house of Ramesh Chand(deceased) and asked him to accompany him so that Ramesh Chand (deceased) could understand as to how he owed a sum of Rs 58000/-towards accused. It is also alleged that on that day, Ramesh Chand(deceased) after coming back secluded himself in one room and in the next morning found hanging as stated herein above.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that S.I Shri Bhagwan seized three pages written with the pen, two notebooks and a small diary along with a red colour ball pen without a cap . Statement of Budh Singh, father of Ramesh Chand(deceased) was recorded . He made endorsement on said statement and got registered the FIR through Ct. Vinod. After registration of FIR investigation of the present case was entrusted to S.I Jai Kishan who reached at the spot and prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Shri Bhagwan. Crime team was called SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 3 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC at the spot. Crime team along with photographer reached at the spot . Spot was inspected and photographs were taken. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted.
5. Said suicide note and admitted handwriting were sent to FSL for examination and as per FSL report suicide note was written by deceased Ramesh Chand. In the suicide note there is an allegation that Ramesh Chand has committed suicide as he was being harassed by accused Jai Prakash.
6. On completion of investigation , accused was chargesheeted for the offence u/s 306 IPC . Cognizance of the offence was taken by ld MM and subsequently, since the offence u/s 306 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore vide order dated 30.06.2011, case was committed to the court of sessions.
7. Vide order dated 03.08.2011, ld predecessor of this court decided the charge and accordingly, accused was charged for the offence u/s 306 IPC r/w section 108 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 4 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC tried.
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many eleven witnesses. Although, the detailed testimonies of the relevant witnesses shall be discussed herein after in the subsequent para's, however, it would be appropriate to discuss in brief the testimonies of those prosecution witnesses to have an overview of the nature and kind of evidence which has come on the record.
9. PW1 Dr. Bhim Singh deposed that on 23.8.2007, Dr. Narender Rana conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ramesh Chand. He tried to prove the postmortem report as ExPW1/A.
10. PW2 Budh Singh is the father of the deceased Ramesh Chand. He deposed that deceased Ramesh Chand had already returned a sum of Rs 28000/- out of Rs 30000/- but accused still kept on insisting Ramesh Chand(deceased) to pay Rs 58000/-.PW2 is shown to have made a statement ExPW2/B , alleging that accused Jai Prakash used to harass his son Ramesh, on the basis of which present FIR was registered. According to the SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 5 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC prosecution he is also witness to the recovery of suicide note ExPW2/C which was seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/A. He was cross examined at length by the ld defence counsel.
11. PW3 Ms Komal is the daughter of deceased Ramesh Chand. She deposed that her father has committed suicide due to mental torture given by accused Jai Prakash as accused used to visit their house to torture her father by abusing him as his father had taken a loan of Rs 30,000/- from the accused. PW3 also identified the note books ExP-1, ExP-2 , small diary ExP-3 and pages written in the handwriting of deceased Ramesh Chand ExP-4, ExP-5, ExP-6, in note book pages ExP-7 , ExP-8 pages in notebook ExP-1 and ExP-9- ExP-13 in small diary ExP-3. PW3 was also cross examined by the ld counsel for the accused.
12. PW4 Naresh Kumar is the brother of the deceased Ramesh Chand. He has deposed on the lines of PW2 Budh Singh. He deposed that there was some money transaction between accused Jai Prakash and Ramesh Chand(deceased) to the tune of Rs 30,000/- out of which Rs 28000/- were already returned by his brother SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 6 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC Ramesh Chand(deceased) but despite that accused used to demand Rs 50,000/-. He further deposed that his brother Ramesh Chand(deceased) used to tell him that accused Jai Prakash is harassing , pressurizing and abusing him. He further deposed that one day prior to his death, deceased Ramesh Chand told him that accused is pressurizing him and asking him to return money saying that "agar tu paise nahin de sakta toh marr kyu nahin jaata". PW4 was also cross examined by the ld defence counsel.
13. PW 5 ASI Vedwati is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR ExPW5/A and DD no. 11 A ExPW5/B.
14. PW6 Nahano Devi is the wife of the deceased Ramesh Chand . She deposed more or less on the lines of other family members i.e PW2 Budh Singh, PW3 Ms Komal and PW4 Naresh Kumar.
15. PW7 Ms Anjan Verma , Sr. Scientific Officer proved the FSL report ExPW7/A pertaining to the suicide note prepared by Sr. Scientific officer, Sh Anurag Sharma.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 7 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
16. PW8 Constable Raman Kumar is the witness who took sealed parcel to FSL , Rohini vide RC no. 194/21/07 and after depositing the same there , handed over the acknowledgement receipt to MHC(M).
17. PW9 S.I Shri Bhagwan is the 1st IO who is shown to have reached at the spot on receipt of DD no. 11 A regarding suicide by hanging at Harijan Basti, Bawana. He deposed that he reached at the spot where one person namely Suresh was present. In his presence suresh broke open the door of the room and they found Ramesh (deceased) hanging with a rope from ceiling fan. They entered the room and found a shirt hanging on a peg (khuti). On checking that shirt it was found containing a suicide note. Suicide note ExPW2/C was seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/A. Dead body was taken down from the ceiling fan and rope was converted into parcel and sealed with the seal of SB and seized vide memo ExPW9/A. He further deposed that he had seized three pages written with the pen and recorded the statement of complainant ExPW2/B. He made endorsement on that statement and got registered the FIR through Contable Vinod. He got the postmortem done on the dead body of deceased and after postmortem SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 8 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC dead body was handed over to Budh Singh and Naresh vide memo ExPW9/D.
18. PW10 Constable Vinod is the witness who is shown to have assisted the IO during investigation.
19. PW11 S.I Jai Kishan deposed that after registration of FIR, investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. He reached at the spot where ASI Shri Bhagwan met him who handed over all the relevant documents of the case to him. He prepared site plan ExPW11/A at the instance of ASI Shri Bhagwan. Crime team along with photographer came at the spot. He marked certain pages i.e A1 to A 10 in the diary and the notebooks which were found at the spot by getting the same identified from the daughter of deceased Komal who stated that those writings were of her father Ramesh Chand(deceased) . PW11 further deposed that on the same day i.e 23.8.2007, he arrested accused Jai Prakash vide arrest memo ExPW11/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo ExPW11/C. On 28.9.2007, he sent the original suicide note by marking it as Q1 as well as both the notebooks and diary containing A1 to A10 to FSL , Rohini for examination . He collected FSL report SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 9 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC ExPW11/B.
20. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded . During the statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused denied all the allegations made against him. He did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence.
21. Ld counsel for the accused argued that this is a case where only allegation against the accused is that he demanded his money back from the deceased due to which deceased committed suicide. He submitted that he failed to understand that if someone is demanding his money back from a person and if that person commits suicide then how someone can be held responsible for the same . He has taken me to the provisions of section 306 and 107 IPC and contended that to hold a person guilty under the aforesaid provisions of law, it is to be shown that accused was actually aiding and did anything positive to help the deceased in committing the suicide, which is missing in the present case.
22. Ld Counsel further submitted that there is not even a whisper on the point that accused was involved in SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 10 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC assisting or aiding or helping the deceased Ramesh Chand in committing suicide. Ld counsel submitted that in a particular situation different persons react differently. Some person have strong mental capability and ability to bear the pressure and some person may have weak mental faculty which may persuade them to take such an extreme step.
23. Ld counsel vehemently argued that if someone commits suicide blaming anyone then that person cannot be held responsible because it was the presumption or assumption and thinking process of the person who has committed suicide. By referring the suicide note, ld counsel submitted that even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that it was written by the deceased still it would not come within the ambit of section 306IPC. He submitted that deceased is shown to be the author of the suicide note. Deceased himself had come to the conclusion that accused was harassing him because he was demanding his money back from him. Whether deceased was actually harassed or not, is a matter of fact and in this regard the suicide note cannot be accepted as conclusive proof to that fact.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 11 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
24. Ld counsel urged that the gist of the offence u/s 306 IPC is the 'means rea' or 'intention'. He submitted that it is the intentional aiding which forms the gist of the offence of abetment to suicide. In support of his above mentioned arguments, he has relied upon following authorities:
CO Ghose and Costello, JJ Emperor Vs Perinal Chatterjee and Ors: AIR 1932 Calcutta 760.
State of Bihar vs Ranen Nath & ors: AIR 1958 Patna 259. Brij Lal and other vs state (Delhi Admn) : 1985 CC Cases HC 130 Maulaati Yakub Jamadar & ors vs State of Maharashtra : IV(2000) CCR 624 Bombay HC.
Laxmi & ors vs State :200(2) JCC (Delhi ) 297. Manish Kumar Sharma vs State of Rajasthan :1995 CRLJ 3066 Pallen Deniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and Ors vs State of A.P : 1977(1) Crimes 499 Raj Kumar & Anr vs State of Karnataka :2006(3) Crimes 662 K.Ravi Kumar vs State & Anrs :2008(3) Crimes 345 Khyali Ram & Ors vs State of M.P :2008(1) Crimes 283 (M.P) Kartar Singh & Ors vs CBI :2006(4) Crimes 498 Dr. Mohd Sohail Fazal vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi):2012(3)JCC 1809 State vs Ramesh Sharma & ors :2012(3) JCC 2135 Ramesh Chand Sibbal vs State (GNCT of Delhi): 2009(4)JCC 2681.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 12 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC 25. Per contra, ld chief prosecutor for the state
submitted that there are ample evidence on record which show that there was a money transaction between accused and deceased. By referring the testimonies of prosecution witnesses particularly PW2, PW3 , PW4 and PW6 , who are the family members of the deceased Ramesh, she pointed out that deceased has taken a loan of Rs 30,000/- from the accused out of which he has already returned Rs 28000/- but despite that accused was demanding Rs 58000/- from the deceased. She has also taken me to the suicide note ExPW2/C which was seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/A and submitted that in the suicide note it has been categorically mentioned that deceased is committing suicide as he is being harassed by accused and accused should be held responsible for the same. She submitted that all the ingredients of section 306 IPC are complied with and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
26. I have heard the Ld Chief Prosecutor for the state and the ld counsel for the accused person . I have also perused the record very carefully and authorities cited at bar.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 13 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
27. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to take note of the provisions of Section 306 IPC. Section 306 of the IPC 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.
28. From a bare reading of the provision, it is clear that to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to establish: (i) that a person committed suicide, and (ii) that such suicide was abetted by the accused. In other words, an offence under Section 306 would stand only if there is an "abetment" for the commission of the crime.
Ramesh chand has committed suicide
29. This is not in dispute that in the intervening night of 22-23.8.2007 Ramesh Chand committed suicide. Even otherwise also from the testimonies of prosecution SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 14 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC witnesses and documents on record including medical record, it stands proved that deceased Ramesh Chand had committed suicide. Dr Narender Rana is shown to have conducted postmortem on the body of deceased .PW1 Dr Bhim Singh Proved the post mortem report as ExPW1/A. As per the PM report the cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging . If medical evidence coupled with testimonies of prosecution witnesses and suicide note is accepted then it stands established that Ramesh Chand committed suicide.
Suicide was abetted by the accused or not
30. The parameters of "abetment" have been stated in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines abetment of a thing as follows:
107. Abetment of a thing A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or 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; or Thirdly- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 15 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
31. As per the Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or 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; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 of the IPC.
32. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the allegations leveled against the accused and evidence adduced by prosecution, would attract any one SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 16 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC ?.
33. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by Hon,ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh , (2001) 9 SCC 618, wherein it was observed that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 17 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
34. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action:
provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh Kumar's case (supra), 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 willful omission or conduct which may even be a SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 18 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful 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.
35. In the background of this legal position, I may advert to the case at hand. The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self- respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self- protection or an escapism from intolerable self.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 19 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
36. In the instant case the testimonies of PW2, PW3 , PW4 and PW6 are relevant as they are the family member of the deceased. First of all take the testimony of PW1 Budh Singh. He deposed that deceased Ramesh Chand had borrowed a sum of rs 30,000/- from accused Jai Prakash. Accused told him that deceased has returned him a sum of Rs 28000/- out of Rs 30,000/- and he further told him that deceased still owed him Rs 58000/-. PW2 further deposed that on 22.8.2007 at about 7:00 pm, accused Jai Prakash came to their house and asked the deceased to accompany him for settling the accounts so that deceased could understand as to how he owes Rs 58000/-. Deceased Ramesh Chand did not return to the house up to 10- 11:00pm and in the morning of 23.8.2007, he came to know that Ramesh Chand has committed suicide. He further deposed that police recorded his statement ExPW2/B and suicide note ExPW2/C was seized vide ExPW2/A.
37. During his cross examination, PW2 replied that he does not remember the date, month and year of the aforesaid transaction. He further replied that deceased had borrowed the said amount 5-6 years back prior to the death of Ramesh Chand. When PW2 was confronted with SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 20 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC the statement ExPW2/B regarding his deposition that on 22.8.2007, accused had met him at about 7PM and told him that deceased owed him Rs 58000/-, then date and time were not found mentioned. He further replied that none of their family member had made any complaint to the police about any pressure for returning the money. PW2 was also confronted with the statement regarding that on 22.8.2007, accused had visited the house of deceased and deceased accompanied him so as to understand that how he owed Rs 58000/- and the said fact was not found mentioned in aforesaid statement.
38. PW2 is the maker of the FIR and is shown to have lodged the complaint ExPW2/B on the basis of which the present FIR was registered . In the said complaint ExPW2/B , there are allegations of money transaction between accused and the deceased to the tune of Rs 30,000/- out of which Rs 28000/- was already returned to the accused but still accused used to demand Rs 58000/- but the version of PW2 regarding accused having met the deceased on the eve of incident at 7:00pm and deceased having accompanied the accused, does not find mention in the aforesaid complaint, which reflects a material improvement in the testimony of PW2.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 21 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
39. PW3 Ms Komal is the daughter of deceased Ramesh . She deposed that her father has committed suicide due to the mental torture given by accused Jai Prakash as accused used to visit their house to torture his father by abusing him but during her cross examination she replied that police has not recorded her statement in respect of the case during investigation but it has come on record that her statement ExPW3/X1 was recorded. She further replied that she does not know when her father borrowed Rs 30,000/- from the accused. She even could not tell whether her father had borrowed the money 8 or 10 years prior to his death. She also replied that they did not make any complaint to the police regarding alleged harassment caused by accused Jai prakash. She further replied that on 23.8.2007( it should have been 22.8.2007), her father came to home in the evening and all the six family members were present at that time. She is silent about the visit of the accused to their house on 22.8.2007 as deposed by PW2.
40. PW4 Naresh Kumar is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that there was some money transaction between the accused and his brother Ramesh SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 22 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC Chand. His brother used to tell his father that there is some money transaction between accused Jai Prakash and deceased Ramesh Chand to the tune of Rs 30,000/-. He further deposed that his brother had told him that he had taken Rs 30,000/- from the accused and he had already returned Rs 28000/- but despite that accused used to demand more. He further deposed that his brother Ramesh Chand told him that accused is pressuring him, harassing him and abusing him to return aforesaid money and deceased had told him the aforesaid facts 15 days prior to his death. PW4 deposed that he cannot explain as to in which manner accused used to harass his brother Ramesh Chand, as he was residing separately . A little further he deposed that he cannot tell the reason of committing suicide by his brother Ramesh Chand. A leading question was asked from him from ld APP for state and in reply to that he stated that accused pressurized his brother by saying that "agar tu paise nahi de sakta to mar kyon nahi jata".
41. During his cross examination, PW4 replied that police has recorded the statement as per his version and SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 23 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC he had signed the said statement. No such statement is on the record and only statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC ExPW4/DA ,which is not signed by him, is on the record. He replied that no other statement except that statement which was signed by him, was recorded by the police. Meaning thereby, this witness is denying of having made any statement to the police u/s 161 CrPC. He further replied that aforesaid transaction did not take place in his presence and he cannot tell the exact date of transaction. He cannot tell as to when his brother had returned Rs 28000/- to the accused. He replied that he met his brother one day before his death at around 6'0 clock in the evening at his house. He further replied that he cannot tell the date or the month when the accused allegedly asked deceased "agar tu paise nahi de sakta to tu mar kyon nahi jata". He stated that he had not stated the same to the police. He also replied that they had not made any complaint to the police . The testimony of PW4 also carries material improvements and inconsistencies, which renders it unacceptable.
42. Now, this takes me to the testimony of PW6 Nahano Devi who is wife of the deceased Ramesh Chand. She has deposed more or less on the lines of PW2, PW3 SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 24 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC and PW4 regarding money transaction of Rs 30000/- between accused and deceased Ramesh Chand , out of which deceased Ramesh Chand is shown to have already returned Rs 28000/-. She deposed that accused used to abuse her and her parent in law for not returning the said amount. Her father in law has been examined as PW2 , who has said nothing in this regard that accused used to abuse him . During her cross examination, she also replied that her statement was not recorded by any authority prior to her statement record before the court on 6.5.2014. She replied that aforesaid amount of Rs 30000/- was not borrowed in her presence . She is not aware as to when the aforesaid amount of Rs 28000/- was returned by her husband. She admitted that in her presence neither her husband borrowed any money nor he repaid the same to the accused. She replied that her deceased husband Ramesh Chand used to run a tea stall at different place and he used to reside there and used to visit their house once in a month. She further replied that prior to the incident her deceased husband has visited her house one month before. PW6 is mentioning about lodging of complaint against the accused to the police but she could not tell the date, month or year of making such complaint. She was confronted with the statement SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 25 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC ExPW6/DA( Statement recorded u/s 161 Cr PC though she has denied of having made any such statement) wherein the same was not found mentioned. Entire cross examination of PW6 would reveal that an effort was made to give a new version, which is not only contrary to the case of prosecution but also lack credibility due inherent embellishments and improvements.
43. From the testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6, only one circumstance can at the best be relied upon , is that there was a money transaction between the accused and the deceased to the tune of Rs 30000/-. Besides that, their testimonies are full of contradictions, improvements and embellishments , which are being detailed as under:
i) PW2 Budh Singh ,who is the father of the deceased , is silent that he was ever abused by the accused but PW6 Nahano devi replied that accused used to abuse her and her parents in law.
ii) PW2 Budh Singh is claiming to have met accused Jai Prakash on 22.8.2007, when accused is shown to have visited the house of deceased . PW4 Naresh brother of the deceased is also referring of having met deceased SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 26 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC Ramesh Chand one day before the death but during cross examination PW6 who is the wife has categorically stated that her deceased husband used to reside at the distant village where he is running a tea stall and he used to visit their home once in a month . She further replied that prior to his suicide, her deceased husband had visited her house one month before . That being so, there were no occasion for PW2 and PW4 to meet accused at their house on 22.8.2007.
iii) Further the allegations of harassment are general, vague, unspecific and uncertain. No specific date has been assigned to the alleged harassment. Although aforesaid witnesses are claiming that accused used to abuse and harass but again allegations appears to be general in nature. If accused was so adamant and so frequent visitor to their house and used to abuse them continuously then why they did not make any complaint to any authority, remains unexplained. Although PW6 is claiming to have lodged a complaint but in this regard also except the bald statement of the PW6 Nahano Devi , wife of the deceased , nothing has been brought on record to corroborate the same.
iv) As stated herein above, the testimony of family members of the deceased Ramesh Chand namely PW2 Budh Singh, PW3 Komal , PW4 Naresh Kumar and PW6 Nahano Devi is SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 27 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC full of material contradictions and improvements which goes to the root of the matter. Above mentioned witnesses were admittedly examined by Investigation Officer during investigation and in those statements they have not stated the facts which they now for the first time stated before the Court. This raises a serious doubt as to the veracity of the said facts [See Khalil Khan vs. State of M.P. (2003) 11 SCC 19]. In other words these witnesses have made material improvements while deposing in the Court and such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.
44. Now let me advert to the suicide note ExPW2/C. PW2 Budh Singh deposed that suicide note ExPW2/C was seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/A in his presence. PW9 Shri Bhagwan , Ist IO deposed that when they entered the room , where deceased Ramesh Chand committed suicide, they found a shirt hanging on a peg(khuti). On checking that shirt it was found containing a suicide note. Suicide note ExPW2/C was seized vide seizure memo ExPW2/A. PW11 S.I Jai Kishan, II nd IO deposed that on 28.9.2007, he sent the original suicide note by marking it as Q1 as well as both the notebooks and diary containing writings A1 to A10 to FSL , Rohini for SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 28 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC examination .
45. PW7 Ms Anjan Verma , Sr. Scientific Officer proved the FSL report ExPW7/A prepared by Sr. Scientific officer, Sh Anurag Sharma. PW7 has not been cross examined by the accused despite opportunity and this regard her testimony has gone unrebutted. As per FSL Report ExPW7/A ,the person who wrote the red enclosed writings stamped & marked A1 to A10 also wrote the red enclosed writings similarly stamped and marked Q1 . In these circumstances, the suicide note Ex PW2/C stands proved.
46. Suicide note is raising finger towards accused as it is mentioned therein that deceased is committing suicide because accused is pressurizing him and is saying to take the forcible possession of his house. There is allegation of harassment. It is also mentioned that he is committing suicide and the accused should be held responsible for the same. Even the aforesaid allegations are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty for the offence of abetment to suicide as mere harassment by itself would not amount to an offence under section 306 IPC. (Dr. Mohd Sohail Fazal vs State ,Govt of NCT of SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 29 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC Delhi,2012(3)JCC 1809.)
47. Further, in the entire suicide note there is no material to show any abetment by way of "instigation", "illegal omission", "persuasion" or "any consistent course of torture", neglect or harassment", which could be said to have driven deceased Ramesh Chand to take his own life.
48. I do find force in the argument of the ld counsel for the accused that there is no cogent and convicting evidence on record that any overt or covert act or conduct on the part of the accused had contributed to the commission of suicide by Ramesh Chand. In the absence of any cogent proof regarding any sustained cruelty, ill-treatment, or, harassment to Ramesh Chand by the accused, he cannot be held to have excited or instigated the Ramesh Chand to commit suicide.
49. The case of prosecution fails for another reason that there is nothing indicating intention of accused to provoke deceased Ramesh Chand to commit suicide. Hon,ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) , 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 30 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "instigation" and "goading". The court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
50. In Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR2010SC327, it was observed that 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
51. Moreover, from the testimonies of PW2,PW3, PW4 ,PW6 and suicide note at the best it can be SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 31 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC accepted that there was a continuous demand of money by the accused from the deceased Ramesh Chand which was disturbing Ramesh Chand (deceased) but the question arises whether said demand of repayment of loan , even if it was an exorbitant figure , can it be brought within the ambit of section 306 IPC. The answer is 'NO'.
52. Section 306 has been interpreted by number of Courts including the Hon,ble Apex Court, where it has been explained as to in what circumstances and on what facts a case under Section 306 IPC can be made out. Some observations in this regard made by various Courts, relevant to present case, are referred hereinafter:
53. Merely asking for repayment of money or return of articles has been held not to constitute the offence of abetment to commit suicide. This view has been held in (i) 1995 Cr.L.J. 893 (M.P.) (Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) (ii) 2005 Cr.L.J. 4322 (Ker) (Cyriac & Anr. Vs. Sub Inspector of Police) (iii) 2006 Cr.L.J. 3123 (Bom) (Avinash J. Mahale & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra)(iv) Pallen Deniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and Ors vs State of SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 32 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC A.P : 1977(1) Crimes 499
54. In the case of Mahesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (3) Cr.CC 432 (M.P. High Court) it was held that even if the death note (suicide note) mentions about taking a loan by the accused from deceased for getting a plot allotted by the development authority and deceased was harassed when accused refused to give the plot dishonestly where after the deceased committed suicide, would not fulfill ingredients of abetment as no other positive act attributed to the accused was alleged to justify framing of the charge under Section 306 IPC.
55. In the case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (2) Cr. CC 161 not returning the loan amount, which the accused had taken from the deceased and taking away the ornaments from the deceased to ensure payment of dues with a threat that if such payment is not made, Police action will be taken against him was not found to be an act of abetment for commission of suicide by the deceased who committed suicide thereafter and the charge framed against the accused under Section 306 IPC was set aside.
SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 33 of 36 )
FIR No.458/2007
D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana
u/s 306 IPC
56. In the case of Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 CRLJ 3066, where persistent demand for the refund of an amount advanced by the accused to the deceased was not taken as sufficient to bring the instance/demand of the accused in the realm of abetment so as to frame a charge under Section 306 IPC.
57. In the case of Colonel G.C. Ghura v. State of Rajasthan MANU/RH/0273/1995 where also a suicide note was found near the dead body of the deceased alleging that accused had demanded sum from the deceased and on his refusal to pay the same the accused declared him unfit for recruitment to the Army which resulted in suicide. It was held that the refusal of the accused in recruiting the deceased in the Army being not a member of the Selection Board was not an act of abetment as per the provision of Section 107 of the IPC and, therefore, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was allowed.
58. In Ashish Chaudhary Versus State Crl.Rev.P. 725/2007, Date of decision : 19.01.2009 (DHC) it was held that Accused could not be said to be SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 34 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC abettor merely because deceased got frustrated because he could not discharge his debt and heated discussion between Accused and deceased took place to commit suicide - Thus, if in suicide note left by deceased there was some reference that some loan paid by him to one of co-accused was not returned to him by repeated demand or that he could not pay back loan to other Accused persons who had been charging interest but were demanding their money persistently - Hence, Accused persons could not be said to have committed act of omission or commission which may made them either abettor or instigator so as to face a charge under Section 306 IPC
59. The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the decision of the case of Ashish Chaudhary(supra) rendered by our own High Court, which leaves not doubt to arrive at a conclusion that present case does not come with in the ambit of Section 306IPC.
60. In the present case, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, I am left with no option SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 35 of 36 ) FIR No.458/2007 D.O.D 16.09.2014 P.S Bawana u/s 306 IPC but to acquit the accused . Accused person namely Jai Prakash , therefore, stands acquitted from the charge u/s 306 IPC .
61. In terms of section 437(A) CrPC, accused is directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.
62. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (Rajesh Kumar Goel) Court today i.e 16.09.2014 ASJ-5, North Rohini Court SC No. 80/14 State vs Jai Prakash , (Acquitted) (Page 36 of 36 )