Delhi District Court
St. vs . Lala Ram & Ors. on 11 April, 2008
-:1:-
S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J.
TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI
State Vs. 1) Lala Ram,
S/O Late Sh. Jugal Kishore,
R/O J-110, Gali No. 4, Ghati Road,
Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
2) Nirman Singh,
S/O Late Sh. Jugal Kishore,
R/O J-110, Gali No. 4, Ghati Road,
Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
3) Hem Raj,
S/O Late Sh. Jugal Kishore,
R/O J-110, Gali No. 4, Ghati Road,
Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
S.C. NO. 56/07
FIR NO. 35/07
P.S. Anand Parbat,
U/Sec. 498-A/306/34 IPC
Date of institution 04.07.2007.
Arguments heard on 11.04.2008.
Judgment delivered on 11.04.2008.
-:2:-
S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
J U D G M E N T :-
Three brothers, namely, Lala Ram, Nirman Singh and Hem Raj have been chargesheeted for facing trial in a case bearing FIR NO. 35/07, for offence punishable 498- A/306/34 IPC as registered at P.S. Anand Parbat, Delhi, on the basic allegation of exercising dowry harassment and abetting the commission of suicide of Smt. Sarita wife of accused Lala Ram as a result of which she had burnt herself inside toilet of H.NO. J-110, Gali No. 4, Ghati Road, Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi, at about 1:25 p.m. on dt. 08.02.2007 and ultimately expired due to said burn injuries at about 6:00 a.m. on 14.02.2007 at R.M.L. Hospital, Delhi.
-:3:-S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
2. The precise case of the prosecution as found reflected from the charge sheet is that on dt. 08.02.2007 on receipt of copy of D.D. NO. 18A regarding information to the effect that one lady, namely, Sarita W/O Lala Ram, R/O J-110, Gali No. 4, Ghati Road, Punjabi Basti, Anand Parbat, Delhi, has been got admitted in R.M.L. Hospital, S.I. Babu Lal alongwith Ct. Rakesh reached R.M.L. Hospital and obtained M.L.C. of injured Sarita and finding her having sustained burn injuries 80% to 90% and being opined 'Unfit for Statement', S.I. Babu Lal informed about the same to S.D.M. But since the incident have taken place after about 16 years of the marriage of the injured Sarita, S.D.M. declined to initiate proceeding and asked the police to conduct the proceeding at their level. Thereafter, S.I. Babu Lal alongwith Ct. Rakesh came back to the spot and -:4:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
inspected the site and seized the relevant case property from the spot, Crime Team officials were called at the spot, who inspected the site and obtained photographs of the site. S.I. Babu Lal recorded the statement of some witnesses and send information about the incident to parents of the injured at Ghaziabad. The injured Sarita was found 'Unfit for Statement' on 09.02.2007 and 10.02.2007 and ultimately after being opined 'Fit for Statement', her statement was recorded by S.I. Babu Lal on 11.2.2007, which is EX. PW- 11/G. Ultimately, on 14.02.2007 vide D.D. NO. 12A, copy of which is EX. PW-11/J, information regarding death of injured Sarita was received and copy of the same was delivered to S.I. Babu Lal, who proceeded to R.M.L. Hospital and got preserved the dead body for postmortem. On 14.2.2007 S.I. Babu Lal also received copy of D.D. NO. -:5:- S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
20A. On 14.2.2007 S.I. Babu Lal also recorded the statement of complainant Vijay Kumar, brother of the deceased, which is EX. PW-2/A, on the basis of which rukka EX. PW-1/A was prepared and F.I.R bearing No. 35/07, U/S 498-A/406/34 IPC was got registered at P.S. Anand Parbat, copy of which is EX. PW-1/B. After registration of the case further investigation was taken up by S.I. Babu Lal. During the course of investigation statement of relevant witnesses were recorded, all the 3 accused persons were arrested and their disclosure statement was recorded, postmortem on the dead body of Sarita was got conducted and on conclusion of the investigation chargesheet against all the 3 accused was filed before the court of concerned Ld. M.M., who after compliance of requirements U/S 207 Cr. P.C. was pleased to commit the -:6:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
case to the court of Sessions. Thereafter, matter concerning these three accused were assigned to this court for trial.
3. On hearing both the sides on the point of charge vide order dt. 11.9.07, charge for the offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC was framed against these three accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case got examined 11 prosecution witnesses, namely, ASI Ram Kumar, Duty Officer, who has proved the rukka as EX. PW-1/A and copy of the F.I.R. as EX. PW-1/B, a formal witness as PW-1, Vijay Kumar, who is the complainant/brother of the deceased as PW-2, Ravinder Dhanraj, who is cousin brother of the deceased as PW-3, -:7:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
HC Vijender Singh, who had accompanied with the I.O. S.I. Babu Lal after receipt of D.D. NO. 20A on 14.2.2007 and proceeded to mortuary of D.D.U. Hospital, a formal witness as PW-4, Ct. Rajesh, who is a witness to the arrest of the accused persons on 14.2.2007, a formal witness as PW-5, Ct. Rakesh, Photographer from Crime Team, West Distt., who has proved the photographs of the site as EX. PW-6/B-1 to B-3 and negatives as EX. PW-6/A-1 to A-3, a formal witness as PW-6, ASI Tosif Ahmed, who was present with the I.O. at the time of postmortem of the deceased and a formal witness as PW-7, Dr. Preeti Kharbanda, who has prepared the M.L.C. of the patient Sarita on 08.2.207 and proved the same as EX. PW-8/A, a formal witness as PW-8, Ct. Sarjeet Kumar, who has delivered the message regarding the incident to Chander -:8:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
Pal, father of the deceased, a formal witness as PW-9, Chander Pal, father of the deceased as PW-10 and S.I. Babu Lal, who happens to be the I.O. of this case, who has deposed about the steps as taken by him during the course of investigation has been examined as PW-11.
5. After examination of aforesaid 11 prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused, U/S 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded, in which the accused persons denied the allegation of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused have not led any evidence in their defence.
-:9:-S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
6. I have heard Ms. Sangita Sharma, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for all the accused, Sh. Zenul-Abedeen, Ld. A.P.P. for the State and perused the relevant record.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused persons that these accused are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and hence they deserve to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Counsel that even as per the statement of the deceased Sarita, which is EX. PW-11/G as recoded by the I.O., no case U/S 306/34 IPC made out against the accused persons and hence they deserve to be acquitted. It is further added by Ld. Counsel that even otherwise there is nothing on record to establish any query between the accused persons and the deceased just before the alleged incident which can be treated as abetment on the -:10:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
part of the accused persons for commission of suicide by the deceased by getting herself burnt on 08.02.07. It is also added that it is the accused, who have removed the deceased Sarita immediately after her burning to the hospital and got her admitted there and there was no reason on the part of the accused persons to see the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is, thus urged by Ld. Counsel for acquittal of these accused persons.
8. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution by examining aforesaid 11 prosecution witnesses have successfully established its case for the charged offence as against all the accused and they deserve to be convicted accordingly. It is further added by Ld. APP that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement -:11:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
of Vijay Kumar, brother of the deceased and Chander Pal, father of the deceased and hence the accused persons deserve to be convicted for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for which they were charged with. It is, thus, urged by Ld. APP that the accused persons deserve to be convicted for the offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for abetting commission of suicide by the deceased Sarita.
9. From the perusal of the deposition of PW-11 S.I. Babu Lal/I.O., it is reflected that on 08.02.07 at about 3:50 p.m. on receipt of copy of D.D. NO. 18, EX. PW-11/A regarding admission of injured Sarita at R.M.L. Hospital, said S.I. Babu Lal alongwith Ct. Rakesh reached at R.M.L. Hospital and collected the M.L.C. EX. PW-8/A in which injured Sarita was found declared 'Unfit for Statement' and -:12:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
was burnt about 80 to 90%. Said PW-11 S.I. Babu Lal/I.O. further deposed that he gave information in this respect to the concerned S.D.M. but since the incident of burning is stated to have taken place after about 17 years of marriage of the injured, S.D.M. did not come and thereafter he reached the spot and inspected the spot and seized plastic mug having smell of kerosene oil vide seizure memo EX. PW-11/B, Crime Team was called, who inspected the spot and photographs were obtained. Said PW-11 S.I. Babu Lal/I.O. further deposed that ultimately on 11.02.07 after injured Sarita was opined to be 'Fit for Statement', her statement was recorded in the presence of doctor, which is EX. PW-11/G, which bears thumb impression of the injured Sarita at point-A and signature of the doctor at point-C and he attested the said statement at point-D. Said PW-11 S.I. -:13:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
Babu Lal/I.O. further deposed that on 14.2.07 he received information regarding death of injured Sarita at R.M.L. Hospital vide D.D. NO. 12-A and thereafter got sent the dead body to D.D.U. Hospital for postmortem. He further deposed that on 14.2.07 he recorded the statement of Vijay Kumar, brother of the deceased on 14.2.07, which is EX. PW-2/A and on making endorsement EX. PW-1/A got registered the F.I.R., copy of which is EX. PW1/B. He also deposed that he arrested all the 3 accused persons on 14.02.07 vide arrest memo EX. PW-1/C, D & E and their personal search memo EX. PW-1/F, G & H. He also added that he recorded the statement of Chander Pal, father of the deceased and on completion of the investigation prepared the chargesheet. In the cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel said PW-11 S.I. Babu Lal/I.O. has admitted it to be -:14:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
correct that no foul play was found on the part of the accused persons from the statement of Devender, Ashu and Vandana, EX. PW-11/D1, D2 & D3.
10. From the perusal of the statement of deceased Sarita, as recorded by PW-11 S.I. Babu Lal/I.O. on 11.02.07 in the presence of concerned doctor at R.M.L. Hospital, which is EX. PW-11/G, it is reflected that she had been doing private job and she was married to Lala Ram in the year 1992 and was having 3 children. She had further stated that her brother in law (Dewar) Nirman used to take heavy liquor and used to frequently quarrel with his wife Daya and on account of the same and on petty household issue she used to remain tensed and on 08.2.07 at about 1:25 p.m. she took plastic mug containing kerosene oil from the room and -:15:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
went inside the toilet and by pouring kerosene oil and lightening matchstick she burnt herself and thereafter she screamed and came out from the toilet on which her husband Lala Ram and her brother Anil, present there, extinguished fire and removed her to hospital. She further added that no one should be held responsible for her burning as she burnt herself.
11. This is the only statement of the deceased as available on the case file and from the perusal of the aforesaid statement of the deceased, which is EX.PW-11/G, it is clearly reflected that the deceased Sarita out of her tension due to frequent quarrel by her brother-in-law Nirman with his wife Daya and on petty household issue, she poured kerosene oil on herself and lightened matchstick -:16:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
inside the toilet on 08.02.07 at about 1:25 p.m. and sustained burn injuries which ultimately led to her death on 14.2.07 at about 6:00 a.m. in the R.M.L. Hospital. There is nothing on record to show any quarrel of the accused persons upon the deceased prior to the said incident of burning by the deceased. No doubt, PW-2 Vijay Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased and PW-10 Chander Pal, father of the deceased have deposed in the court to the effect that there used to be quarrel against the deceased by the accused persons but they have not deposed any incident of the quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased prior to the incident of burning. Further more, no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to establish that the accused persons had intended that the deceased Sarita should commit suicide or knew that she was likely to -:17:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
commit suicide. It appears to be an independent act on the part of the deceased Sarita herself out of her own emotions and impulsion as entertained by her at the relevant time.
12. Let us see if, the accused persons can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC for abetting for commission of suicide by the deceased Sarita? In the case reported as AIR 1975 S.C. 175 in Para-6 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"Thus, in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is -:18:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. ......
It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107."
In the case reported as 2000(2) JCC Delhi 297, "Lakshmi & Anr. Vs. State" while dealing with the case U/S 306 IPC it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under :-
-:19:-S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
5. Section 306 I.P.C. provides for abetment of suicide and reads :-
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Abetment has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that :-
"A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
Firstly. - Instigates any person to do that thing, or -:20:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
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."
6. Abetment is thus constituted (1) by instigating a person to commit an offence, or (2) by engaging in a conspiracy to commit it, or (3) by intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
-:21:-S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
7. "In Emperor Vs. Amiruddin Solebhoy AIR 1923 Bombay 44", the meaning of the word "instigate" has been explained as under :-
"A person is said to instigate another to act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, Whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragements."
8. In Rishi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 1988 (1) All India Criminal Law Reports 615, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also explained the meaning of the word "instigate" as under :-
-:22:-S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
"The word "instigate"
literally means to goad, urge forward, to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
9. Thus, in the context of the offence the word "instigate" would mean to suggest, provoke, incite or encourage or stimulate to do an act or to urge forward.
10. "Conspiracy" consists in a combination and agreement by -:23:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
persons to do some illegal act or to effect a legal purpose by means. In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there mus be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing.
11. And a person abets by aiding when by any act done, either prior to, or at the time of, commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate the commission thereof.
12. In order to constitute abetment by aiding, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally"
-:24:-S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
aided the commission of the crime (Sri Ram Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC
175)
14. Abetment involves active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence and it is of the essence of the crime of abetment that the abettor should substantially assist towards the commission of the offence. In other words, in order to convict a person of abetting the commission of a crime, it is necessary to connect him with those steps in the transaction which are criminal. It is not the case of the prosecution that when the deceased had committed suicide, the accused were present at -:25:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
the place of incident. There is no material, direct or indirect, to show that the accused had either instigated or conspired or aided the deceased in committing the suicide at that time. And it could not be said that the accused persons had abetted the suicide. On the material available no offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC is made out against either of the accused.
In 2002 (2) JCC 466 (Delhi), "Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti Vs. State" while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306/498A IPC, it was observed by our Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para - 6 as under :-
-:26:-S.C. NO. 56/07
St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
"The law on the subject, to my mind, is that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commissioning of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to -:27:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
facilitate the commission of the crime, intentionally aiding and, therefore, active complicity is the gist of offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107, IPC, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram & Anr. Vs State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175. It is, however, difficult to lay down the exact acts of commission or omission which amount to abetment depending upon facts of the each case but the principles have already been laid down in precedents."
In a recent case reported as 2007 IV (AD) Delhi, 498, Prashant Manchanda Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Anr." while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306 IPC, -:28:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 11 as under :-
"In order to attract Section 306 IPC, the person to abet commission of suicide must do an overt act or some act which instigates the victim to commit suicide. The act so performed must be immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of Police had suspended the deceased Inspector on 12th October, 2004. The deceased Inspector committed suicide exactly after two years. The suspension was done by the Commissioner of Police as an official act which he was authorized to do under law. Every head of the department is supposed to -:29:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
initiate disciplinary action against subordinates when commission or omission of such acts are brought to his notice which prima facie show dereliction of duty or malafide actions."
Further more, in a recent case reported as 2007 V AD (S.C.) 665, "Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors"
it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-
12. Similarly, in Mahendera Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, it was observed by this Court that it is common knowledge that the words uttered in a -:30:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
quarrel or in the spur of the moment or in anger cannot be treated as constituting mens rea. In that case the appellant said to the deceased "to go and die". As a result of such utterance, the deceased went and committed suicide. However, the Supreme Court observed that no offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC was made out because there was no element of mens rea.
13. In "Randhir Singh & Anr.
Vs. State of Punjab" 2004 (3) SCC 129, it was observed that "more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said -:31:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC"
14. In the same decision it was observed following the decision in "State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal 1994 (1) SCC 73" that :-
"The courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in -:32:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by -:33:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.
12. By taking the cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts and circumstances to the present case, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution could not be successful in establishing its case for offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC as against these accused for abetting the commission of suicide by deceased Sarita.
13. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that all these three accused persons, namely, Lala Ram, Nirman Singh and Hem Raj are acquitted for the charged offence punishable U/S 306/34 IPC. As all these accused persons -:34:- S.C. NO. 56/07 St. Vs. Lala Ram & Ors.
are on bail, their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. After doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this court, this case file be consigned to Record Room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA) On 11th April 2008. Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.