Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jasnath vs Bheek Nath And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:14438) on 18 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:14438] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 84/2015 Jasnath Swami S/o Bhomnath, R/o Inside Shambhu Bhawan, Fateh Sagar, Jodhpur.
----Appellant Versus
1. Bheeknath S/o Bhanwar Nath, R/o Naya Bas No.2, Near Hanuman Temple, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
2. Vari Devi W/o Bheeknath, R/o Naya Bas No.2, Near Hanuman Temple, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 611/2015 State of Rajasthan
----Appellant Versus
1. Bheeknath S/o Bhanwar Nath, R/o Naya Bas No.2, Near Hanuman Temple, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
2. Vari Devi W/o Bheeknath, R/o Naya Bas No.2, Near Hanuman Temple, Sirohi, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Gupta
Mr. Mrinal Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapat, PP
Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
Reportable 18/03/2025
1. The present appeals have been preferred under section 372 r/w section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') by the appellant - complainant so also by the State against the judgment and order dated 09.12.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (2 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015] Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'), whereby the accused - persons namely Bhiknath, Bhanwar Nath and Vari Devi have been acquitted of the charges under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') levelled against them.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that accused Bhanwar Nath (respondent No.2) has since passed away and the appeal against him has therefore, been abated. Ordered accordingly.
3. The facts appertain are that on 01.01.2006 one Dinesh @ Bhupendra Nath has committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope tied to the fan in his room.
4. Initially, the competent authority looked into the matter under section 174 Cr.P.C.; an inquest was issued however, no FIR was registered though a written complaint was submitted by the father of the deceased on 02.01.2006. The complainant - Jasnath (Father of the deceased) again made a representation dated 19.01.2006 and in furtherance whereof, a case was registered on 20.01.2006 vide FIR No.19/2006 in Police Station - Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur.
5. After the investigation, the police had filed a negative final report; against which the complainant filed a protest petition. Pursuant to the protest petition, investigation was carried out during which the police recovered a suicide note (Ex.P/10) so also the diary, which the deceased - Dinesh used to maintain (Ex.P/9).
6. Charge-sheet then came to be filed; whereafter the case was committed to the Court of Session and the charges under section 306 I.P.C. were framed against the accused persons. (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (3 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015]
7. The accused persons denied the allegations and thus they were tried for the offence alleged.
8. During the course of trial, Rajendra Arora (PW-1) appeared in the witness box and proved the seizure of the diary (Ex.P/1) and site inspection memo (Ex.P/2); while Premchand (PW-2) proved the inquest report (Ex.P/3), Panchnama (Ex.P/4), seizure memo of odani (Ex.P/5) and memo of handing over of corpse to PW-6 (Ex.P/6). Bhim Nath (PW-3)(Maternal Uncle of the deceased) appeared in the witness box and proved two photographs of Khushboo (wife of the deceased)(Ex.D/1 and D/2) and statement of Premchand recorded during inquiry under section 174 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/3). Ghewar Nath (PW-4) and Chain Nath (PW-5) (another maternal uncles of the deceased) appeared in the witness box and maintained the statements which they gave under the proceedings of section 202 of the Cr.P.C (Ex.D/4). The complainant - Jasnath (PW-6) appeared in the witness box and proved the report dated 02.01.2006 (Ex.P/7), which was registered as 'Marg' or 'death report', typed complaint dated 19.01.2006 (Ex.P/8), diary of the deceased (Ex.P/9), suicide note (Ex.P/10) and his application regarding postponement of investigation as the family was bemourned (Ex.P/11). Kan Nath (PW-7) appeared in the witness box and proved the statement given under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/5) and statement given under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/6). Bhanwari Devi (PW-8) (Mother of the deceased) proved the photographs of Khushboo (Ex.D/1 and D/2). Dr. M. P. Joshi (PW-9) proved the post-mortem report and the cause of death (Ex.P/9) while Lal Singh (Investigating Officer)(PW-10) deposed about the inquiry, (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (4 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015] which he had conducted under section 174 of the Cr.P.C. between 02.01.2006 and 23.01.2006. Kishor Singh, S.H.O. (PW-11), who investigated the case and furnished the final negative report, appeared in the witness box and proved the same. Dr. Amita Bhargav (PW-12) (Neuron Physician), who had examined Khushboo, proved her report (Ex.D-7) and deposed that Khushboo was not suffering from polio/paralysis and that she was able to do all the household chores.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, three maternal uncles (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5) and complainant - Jasnath (PW-6) appeared in the witness box to support the prosecution's case.
10. Upon considering the oral and ocular evidence, the trial court vide judgment dated 09.12.2014 acquitted the accused persons by giving benefit of doubt on various counts, including that the suicide note (Ex.P/10) and the diary (Ex.P/9), which were recovered and alleged to be that of the deceased person were not proved to be hand-written by the deceased.
11. While holding so, the trial court also observed that the Investigating Officer (PW-10) did not get the diary and the suicide note examined by the handwriting expert and therefore, the fact that diary and the suicide note were drawn by the deceased was not proved.
12. The trial court has further observed that none of the witnesses have been able to prove that any of the accused persons have ever induced/propelled the deceased or compelled him to commit suicide so as to bring on record any act which would fall within the ambit of section 306 of the I.P.C. It was further observed that the deceased who committed suicide on (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (5 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015] 01.01.2006 had no contact with the accused persons after 28.12.2005.
13. Assailing the order of the learned trial court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has committed a serious error of law in acquitting the accused persons. It was argued that the suicide note and the diary, which had been recovered from the person and possession of the deceased, belong to the deceased - Dinesh and in the teeth of what has been written in the suicide note, the allegation of abetment of suicide punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. was erroneously found not proved.
14. Taking the Court through the suicide note (Ex.P/10) and the diary of the deceased (Ex.P/9), learned counsel argued that there is enough incriminating evidence pointing that the accused persons had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel argued that simply because the prosecution failed to get the opinion of handwriting expert in relation to the diary and suicide note, the accused persons could not have been exonerated.
15. Learned counsel further took the Court through the testimony of maternal uncles of the deceased (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5) and the complainant - Jasnath (PW-6) and argued that sufficient oral evidence had been tendered by the prosecution and the complainant party to bring the charge of section 306 of the I.P.C. home. He thus argued that the trial court has committed an error of law in acquitting the accused persons and prayed that the order under challenge be set aside and accused persons - 1 and 3 be convicted for offence under section 306 of I.P.C. (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (6 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015]
16. Learned Public Prosecutor also joined Mr. Anil Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that there was enough evidence and material pointing towards overt act of the accused persons due to which the deceased was impelled to commit suicide. He argued that lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer (PW-10) of not getting the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be a sole reason of giving a clean chit to accused persons, particularly when the other persons, namely, maternal uncles of the deceased (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5) and the complainant - Jasnath (PW-6) and the Investigating Officer (PW-
10) have deposed against them.
17. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused persons argued that the prosecution has left a grave lacuna in the investigation by not sending the suicide note and the diary for forensic examination. He argued that unless the fact that the diary and the suicide note have been drawn by the deceased person was proved no cognizance of the recitals made in the suicide note and the diary could be taken.
18. He alternatively argued that even if the suicide note is taken into account, there is nothing to show that it were the accused persons who had instigated or aided or created a situation due to which the deceased had to take an untoward decision of committing suicide.
19. He argued that the deceased person was dissatisfied with his matrimony with Khushboo and within 45 days of the marriage, he ended his life. There was no serious allegation as contended by the complainant against the accused persons. (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (7 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015]
20. He argued that entire evidence which the prosecution had led does not bring out any case for abetment of suicide.
21. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
22. The case of the appellant is premised strongly on the recitals made in the suicide note and the diary and both of these vital documents were not sent for forensic examination. In absence of such forensic corroboration, it cannot be said with certitude that such suicide note was drawn by the deceased. Such lacuna on the part of the prosecution is grave enough to be ignored.
23. The complainant and prosecution still had an opportunity to lead direct evidence or circumstantial evidence to show that the handwriting in the subject diary (Ex.P/9) and the suicide note (Ex.P/10) was that of the deceased person, but no evidence worth the name to this effect had been led. The recitals made in the suicide note and the diary were, therefore, not proved in the eye of law.
24. In the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee reported in AIR 1964 SC 529, Hon'ble the Supreme Court while holding a similar view, has observed thus :-
"Besides it is necessary to observe that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is usual to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the probabilities are against the expert's opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly in consistent with it."
25. Upon sifting through the oral evidence led by maternal uncles of the deceased (PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5) and the (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (8 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015] complainant - Jasnath (PW-6) (father of the deceased), what at the best can be concluded is that there was a matrimonial discord between the deceased and his wife. But there is not even iota of evidence that shows any act of incitement on the part of accused persons. Their deposition does not bring on record any incident having proximity or nexus with the commission of suicide.
26. Also, there is inconsistency in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. PW-3 and PW-4, deposed that the wife of the deceased was suffering from polio/paralysis in one hand and leg whereas PW-6 deposed that she was suffering from polio/paralysis in one hand. This casts serious doubt about the credibility of witnesses' testimony, more particularly when Dr. Amita Bhargav (PW-12) had denied the factum of any physical deformity in khushboo due to polio or otherwise.
27. Even if the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant (complainant - Jasnath) is presumed to be correct and it is believed that deceased was harrased and conspired to marry Khushboo, who was allegedly suffering from Polio, then also, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that there was any active or direct act/role on the part of accused persons to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. The proof or evidence of marital disharmony for whatever reason cannot be a proof of abetment of suicide. "There must be evidence of an act of incitement in immediate proximity with the incident of suicide so as to hold such act to be an act of abetment of suicide".
28. If the provision of section 306 of the I.P.C. and the definition of abetment given under section 107 of the I.P.C. are taken into consideration, the evidence led by the prosecution does not (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (9 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015] establish that there was any instigation - direct or proximate to bring the case within the ambit of the abetment of suicide under Section 306 of I.P.C. Without there being any positive proximate act of instigation or aiding in commission of suicide on the accused persons, an accused person cannot be convicted. The instigation or provocation (if any) should be as such to transpire a definite 'mens-rea' to abet the deceased person to commit suicide.
29. On combined reading of the testimony of the witnesses what transpires is that the deceased - Dinesh was however dissatisfied or disgruntled with his marriage with Khushboo. His grievance (if any) was with Khushboo. And surprisingly enough Khushboo had not been arrayed as an accused. It is apparent that the deceased ended his life for the reasons best known to him. Neither the unproved Diary (Ex.P/9) nor does the suicide note (Ex.P/10) (even if it is taken into account) or the oral deposition of relatives of the deceased (PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 & PW-6) bring to fore any incident or evidence having direct correlation with the act of suicide.
30. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of judgments including in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, has observed a similar position of law, which is being reproduced as below :-
"In a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable."
31. There is no immediate link between the act of suicide and alleged action of the accused persons. No act of instigation or (Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:14438] (10 of 10) [CRLA-84/2015] provocation could be attributed to accused persons due to which the deceased was left with no other alternative but to commit suicide. Bald allegations or even assertions without substantive corroboration and the mere factum of suicide cannot be a reason to implicate and hold the persons guilty of the offence under section 306 of the I.P.C.
32. In the case of Patel Babubhai Manohardas & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, reported in MANU/SC/0321/2025, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed that instigation must involve goading, urging or provoking the deceased to commit suicide and there must be a proximate act leading to suicide. The relevant part is being reproduced hereinafter :-
"Abetment to commit suicide involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in the doing of a thing. Without a positive proximate act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Besides, in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence."
33. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, this Court does not find any error or infirmity in the judgment dated 09.12.2014, impugned in the present appeals. The appeals are therefore dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 83 & 84-Arun/-
(Downloaded on 20/03/2025 at 09:41:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)