Delhi District Court
State vs . Brat Pal Singh & Ors. on 9 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No.76/08 Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0491512007 Date of Argument :23.03.2012 Date of Order :09.05.2012 FIR No.:332/05 PS:Farsh Bazar U/S:306/34 IPC State Vs. Brat Pal Singh & Ors.
ORDER ON CHARGE The facts of the prosecution case in brief are that Sh. Harsh Khatri, the deceased was a student of Amity School of Engineering & Technology, Bijwasan for the course of B. Tech. in Mechanical ad Automation Engineering. Shri Brat Pal Singh was the Director and Sh. V.V. Krishna Shastri was the Class Teacher of the deceased Harsh Khatri. He appeared in the examination but in the paper 'communication skills' he was awarded zero (o) marks instead of his rightful marks and his marks was awarded to another student namely Sh. Rohit Srivastava. Deceased Harsh Khatri made all his efforts for rectifying of mistake committed by the Class Teacher Sh. V.V. Krishna Shastri and the Institution but the mistake in awarding the SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 23 marks could not be rectified. Sh. V.V. Krishna Shastri and Director Sh. Brat Pal Singh pressurized the deceased to reappear in the paper to which deceased did not agree as he was awarded zero marks due to mistake of his class teacher and not due to his own fault. His parents also made efforts but mistake could not be rectified. Deceased ultimately felt humiliated when his parents were allegedly insulted by the accused persons. The deceased could not cope up with the situation and ultimately ended his life by committing suicide. He left detailed suicide note.
2. It would be relevant to reproduced the relevant portions of suicide note which is self explanatory and that is as under:
"This is my last letter, my suicide letter, mere last time mei jo brain and heart main aa raha hai, I am writing only that. I Harsh Khatri, student of Amity School of Engg. and Technology affiliated to Indraprastha University apne poore hosho hawash main likh raha hoon ki main apni life se thang aa chukka hoon our jeene ki ichha khattam ho gai hai communications skills ka marks ne bahut tang kar diya hai. I can't trust anyone from now so, I am ending my life. I trusted my Director B.P. Singh, trusted my Lecturer of communication skill, V V Krishna Sastry and what I got in return, betrayal and cheating. On the day my IInd Semester result were declared, I met the director and told him that instead of taking the Exams and obtaining marks in it, I was awarded Zero. That day Mr. Sastry was absent and so, director advised me to "do as Mr. Sastry told you, SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 23 when you meet him tomorrow, don't worry if his not your mistake you won't be penalized". I met Mr. Sastry next day and he told me "I will find out where the problem is and it's the mistake of mine, college or University". He passed one week, sometimes saying that he is busy today and sometimes he is absent or he is a guest faculty. Afterwards he told me that it is his mistake and his first advice is that "give a back paper, Khatri, I will reward you more marks"
when I denied the offer he said that "OK, I will go to University and give them in writing that it my mistake please award Mr. Khatri the rightful marks". He assured me that I have nothing to do with it and I don't to write to anybody. Afterwards he told me that "University members assured him that, Mr. Khatri marks will be corrected when he received his IInd Semester mark sheet and will be awarded the rightful marks". I received my mark sheet in April (28-29) 2005 and again I was Zero in communication skill II. Only one week was remaining for my end term exam and I don't feel it right to get engaged in the matter at that time but I was in a constant mental pressure and cannot concentrate on my study well, that my results shows too. After the exam I demand for Mr. Sastry's phone no. from the Office, they gave me a wrong no. which I tried for weeks but no one replied until one day the receiver to reply that Mr. Sastry live here. I was given the correct phone no. of Mr. Sastry from the office and Mr. Sastry acts as he is surprised to hear the news about my mark sheet and promised me to meet tomorrow. I waited him the whole day, he doesn't show up and when I call him but he say that he is sick and cann't come to college and on that day 6/7/05 informed me that my case is of discrepancy and my marks are awarded to Rohit Sachdeva who was actually absent, then he also told me that University persons didn't assured him anything about my mark sheet but they need a reference from the director and dictated me an application to be drafted to the director. I did the same and the director without paying attention to my case told me to forward this application to University. That was SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 3 of 23 month of July of counseling were in University no one is there to take notice of my case so, after the counseling were over my father submitted this application in the University on 8.8.05. On 27.9.05 he personally met Mr. Kamal at the University and Mr. Kamal told him that this is case of internal exams and nothing can be done until the director writes him what to do. I met the director next day and after listening me for a while and looking in the records when he found out that indeed it is a case of mistake by college, he burst out on me and told me either to give a back paper or forget the credits of Comm. Skill II. I was not willing to do so, so I seek help from my other Lecturers, HOD Mechanical department and Dean of Student welfare Society, Mrs. Sunita Rattan. They all agree that this is not my fault, but also suggested that give a back paper and taught me the lesson of the importance of 1.5 credits or giving a back paper is nothing. Mr. Shastri has just to write to director admitting that it is mistake, but he make it his prestige issue and again misguided me that he knows some person in University, don't go by procedure. It will take time and do as I say. On 3/10/05, I gave an application to director to help me out. Instead they tried to suppress the matter. On 05.10.05 my parents were insulted by the director when they tried to talk to him and everyone even Mrs. Sunita Rattan whom I respect so dearly suggest me to get yourself penalized, you cannot fight to system. I know its not your fault but do as sir says give a back paper. I cannot tolerate this any more. Why? Why should I give a back paper? For your college fake prestige and prestige of Mr. Shastri? If my teachers are doing this to me how can I trust anyone even if I win this case. They all are threatening me that even you get your marks correct, we will do our best that each of your small mistake became an issue and you won't get well placed job. I am a person who is not fit for this world, they cannot understand my feeling and I cannot understand their ideas. From my childhood I was told never to bend, its better to break rather and I am SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 23 completely broken in my heart. But I am believer of god and I do not want any disciplinary or judicial actions against these persons I mentioned as those who forced me to take such action. I write all the details so that the people can come to know about my story. It is the first ever case in which a student is committing a suicide because instead of passing a exam he was not awarded his marks and mistake was never been corrected. I cannot bend in front of this system instead I decided to take my life. My last wish is that 'please pass' on my messages on the next pages to those whom they are concerned with and tell them to pay attention to them."
3. I have heard arguments of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Counsels for both the accused and perused file including written submissions.
4. During the course of arguments Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that there is sufficient material on record including statement dated 05.10.2005 to frame a charge against both the accused persons as there were clear allegations against them for abetment to commit suicide.
5. In support of his arguments Ld. Counsel for complainant relied on a case Hem Chand v. State of Jharkhand, 2008(2) C.C. Cases (SC) 271, wherein the Apex Court observed that:
SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 23"The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the Court. It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily not consider as to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any."
6. Ld. Counsel for complainant further relied on a case Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378, wherein the apex Court observed that:
"Reading Section 306 and 107 together it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under S.306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide. A plain reading of this provision shows that before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person, it must be established that such other person committed suicide."
7. Ld. Counsel for complainant further relied on a case Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 527, wherein the apex Court observed that:
"11. The suicide note clearly refers to the background in which the victim took the extreme step of taking away his own life by committing suicide. It is not a case where there is no reference to any act by the accused. In Netal Dutta's case (supra) para 6 it was observed as follows:SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 23
"6. In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag."
12. In the instant case the suicide note clearly refers to the acts of the accused appellants and the roles played by them. Therefore, the High Court rightly rejected the prayer of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code. We make it clear that any observation made by the High Court and by us while dismissing of the present appeal shall be construed to be determinative factor in the trial."
8. Ld. Counsel for complainant further relied on a case Randhir Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, VI (2004) SLT 215, wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In case of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC."
9. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the accused Brat Pal Singh that commission of suicide by the deceased was an unfortunate act but accused SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 23 persons are not responsible for that. Neither of the accused committed any act which could be attributed to an act of instigation to the deceased to commit suicide. It was emphasized that no man of ordinary prudence would commit suicide for such mistake as alleged by the prosecution in the present case. Similar type of arguments were addressed on behalf of the accused V.V. Krishna Shastri.
10. In support of his arguments Ld. Defence Counsel relied on a case S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, 2010 INDLAW SC 612 wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"28. 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.
29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 8 of 23
30. When we carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant. The order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable. It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever. Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside."
[Emphasis supplied]
11. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, 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 the 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 there 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 IPC is not sustainable."
[Emphasis supplied]
12. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 9 of 23 Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2008 (6) SCALE 192 wherein the Supreme Court observed that:
"8. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC." [Emphasis supplied]
13. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Mahendra Singh And Another Gayatribai v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 wherein the Apex Court observed that "2. Learned counsel for the appellant rightly submitted that but for the statement of the deceased there is no other pointed evidence from which it could be inferred that there was any abetment so as to bring the acts of the appellants within Section 306 IPC, under which the appellants have been punished. The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, because it provides for abetment of 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 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a 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 SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 10 of 23 in order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge."
[Emphasis supplied]
14. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371 wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"14. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt. Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not the handiwork of a man with a sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 CrPC before the investigation officer."
15. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Brij Lal and another v. State (Delhi Administration), XII-1984(2) Crimes Delhi High Court 985 wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"According to the worst of these declaration, the victim was being "neglected" by the son at the instance of the daughter in law had been abused and the daughter in law had even told her "to die by drowing in Yamuna". The language of the declaration is not very coherent but it is SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 11 of 23 not difficult to spell out of it that the victim decided to take her life because she was not happy the way she was being treated by the son at the instance of the daughter in law, and by the daughter in law. But none of these allegations, including a mere suggestion that she should go and drown herself in Yamuna, in the absence of other material would, on any reckoning, be sufficient to justify a charge of abetment."
16. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Neeraj Gupta v. State, 132 (2006) DLT 137 Delhi High Court wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"However, I am of the view that this is a case which cannot be covered under Section 306, IPC even if the prosecution case is believed in its entirety. This is because there is no active engagement on behalf of the petitioner to encourage or incite the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner's role is that after taking money he was unable to set up the hotel for the deceased. The further role attributed to him was that he refused to pay back the money to the deceased. It may be suggested that the petitioner betrayed the confidence and trust reposed in him by Vivekanand Pandey. But, it cannot be said that the petitioner incited or urged or goaded or coaxed or cajoled Vivekanand Pandey to commit suicide. In fact there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner was even aware that Vivekanand Pandey was harbouring suicidal thoughts. The crucial element of mens rea is not even alleged in the prosecution's case. The acts attributed to the petitioner cannot, in my view, amount to instigation under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, there being no abetment, the offence under Section 306, IPC is not made out against the petitioner."
[Emphasis supplied] SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 12 of 23
17. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Prashant Manchanda v. Ltd. Governor of Delhi & Anr., 2007 [2] JCC 1227 wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"11. 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 the immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of Police had suspended 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 department is supposed to 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 mala fide actions." [Emphasis supplied]
18. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case Smt. Shashi Prabha Devi v. State of Assam, 2006 CRI L.J. 1762 wherein the Gauhati High Court observed that:
"On perusal of the impugned Judgment, we find that the learned trial Court was under the impression that the accused appellant being the Head Mistress of the School, was not entitled to recall any wrong order or rectify any mistake that has cropped up or that the Head Mistress is not eligible to scold a student for any undue advantage sought by her. This act will not amount to abetment of an offence. Even if we accept the prosecution evidence in toto, we find that there was absolutely no instigation or abetment on the part of the accused to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Further with reference to the decision of the Apex Court regarding giving of false explanation by the accused appellant, the prosecution has not been challenged on the ground that the Head Mistress SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 13 of 23 had left the School around 11.30 a.m. and had gone to Barpeta on official duty. Therefore, on analysis of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that no case for instigation or abetment to commit suicide by the deceased is made out against the appellant. The act attributed will not constitute an offence of abetment under Section 107 IPC." [Emphasis supplied]
19. Ld. Defence Counsel further relied on a case wherein Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State, 2000(2) JCC 466 (Delhi) wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"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 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. v. 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." [Emphasis supplied]
20. It would be appropriate to reproduced Section SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 14 of 23 107 & 306 of IPC which runs as under:
"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.
Explanation 1.-
A person, who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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.
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 terms which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
21. It would be relevant to refer principles of law laid down in case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar, AIR 1979 SC 366 (1) wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"10. Thus, on a consideration of authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out;SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 15 of 23
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceedings with the trial.
(3) The test of determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial."
22. Thus, the court at the time of framing of charge as provided under Section 227 of the Cr. P.C., has to see the material to enable it to decide prima facie whether Court should proceed with trial or not. At this stage, the Court is not to scan evidence as if it is to acquit or convict the accused. Truth, veracity and effect of evidence are not to be judged at the stage contemplated by section 227 of SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 16 of 23 the Cr.P.C. Absence of ground for proceeding against the accused means absence of a prima facie case, the Court may sift evidence to see whether ingredients of the alleged offences are in existence or not? Where there is a strong suspicion existing at the initial stage which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Thus, it is crystal clear that at the time of forming an opinion on the point of charge, the Court has to form a prima facie opinion of the matter. No meticulous assessment of evidence is permissible at that juncture.
23. I have considered the rival contentions of Ld. Counsels for parties and Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in the light of the principles of law laid down in cases referred by Ld. Counsel for complainant as well as Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. I come to the conclusion that material and evidence in the form of documents and statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., are unable to raise the grave suspicion of commission of offence of abetment of suicide by both the accused persons. The reasons which support my decision are firstly, that SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 17 of 23 although it was a bounden duty of the accused persons to rectify the mistakes in awarding zero marks to deceased Harsh Khatri and both the accused persons also utterly failed in discharge of their duties but it cannot be said that omission has led to commission of suicide by deceased Harsh Khatri.
24. Secondly, Section 306 IPC provides that whoever abets the commission of suicide, shall be punished. Section 107 defines abetment of things. It inter alia provides that a person abets the doing of a thing who either instigate any person to do that thing or engages with one or more other person in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy. Section 120-A Cr.P.C. defines a criminal conspiracy as when two or more person agree to do or caused to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means. If these provisions are applied on the facts of present case then no case of abetment of suicide is made out.
25. Thirdly, even it is considered as indisputable that not only Sh. V. V. Krishna Shastri failed to acknowledge his mistake and to inform the University for SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 18 of 23 making corrections in the marks of deceased Harsh Khatri and the Director of the Institute has also failed to rectify the mistake and resolve the issue but also it was made clear to the deceased that a minor mistake on the part of deceased will be made an issue and he will not be able to get proper placement in the services, even then it does not amount to instigation or abetment of suicide. It does not sound well that victim should commit suicide for the alleged act of omission to perform their duties. Many legal remedies were available for the deceased for rectification of mistake in awarding him zero (0) marks by accused.
26. Fourthly, the suicide note itself is explanatory. Relevant portions have been highlighted in the order. Those portions have shown the maximum examples of alleged harassment of deceased by both the accused persons. Even all are considered as true even then case of abetment is not made out. Moreover, the victim himself desired not to take any judicial action against the accused persons for committing suicide by him.
27. Fifthly, In the suicide note he wrote that he 'learnt to break than bend'. His such ill learning in his life has led him to commit suicide. The accused persons SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 19 of 23 cannot be held guilty for that.
28. Sixthly, I am convinced with the arguments of Ld. Counsels for accused persons and particularly with the arguments that deceased was not a man of ordinary prudence. As per material available on record, he was a bright student. At the same time, he acted like a person not of ordinary prudence. No person of ordinary prudence would like to commit suicide on such an issue like one in present case. It can be said at this stage that he was hypersensitive. It may be a reason for committing suicide by him.
29. Seventhly, the principles of law laid down in case Hem Chand v. State of Jharkhand, (supra), Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, (supra), Didigam Bikshapathi v. State of A.P., (supra), and Randhir Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, (supra), will not provide any benefit to the prosecution as these deals with the basic principles of law and even applying on those principles on the facts of present case it could not be prima facie established that accused persons are responsible or either of them instigated deceased Harsh Khatri to commit the suicide. Besides, the facts of present case and those cases are SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 20 of 23 distinguishable.
30. Eighthly, I am convinced with the arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused that mens rea is absent in the present case. There is no evidence on record showing any mens rea on the part of either of the accused. As held in case S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, (supra), it is one of the essential of Section 306 that there must be clear mens rea to commit the offence. As averments of mens rea are absent in present case, so it would not be justified to frame charge against the accused as it would be a futile exercise.
31. Ninethly, there is no proximity of the omission of duty of accused persons on the one hand and its effect for commission of suicide by deceased on the other hand. Even I am convinced that accused might not be aware of the fact that omission of their duties was going to take life of deceased student.
32. Lastly, the principles of law laid down in rulings relied on by counsel for accused and particularly Amlendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (supra), Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, (supra), Mahendra Singh And SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 21 of 23 Another Gayatribai v. State of M.P., (supra), Brij Lal and another v. State (Delhi Administration), (supra), Prashant Manchanda v. Ltd. Governor of Delhi & Anr.,(supra), Smt. Shashi Prabha Devi v. State of Assam, (supra), and Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State, (supra), supported the case of the accused persons as in the almost similar circumstances it was held that accused persons were not liable for abetment to commit suicide.
33. In view of the above reasons and discussion, I am of the view that there is insufficient material on record to raise strong suspicion for commission of alleged offence against accused persons or to show a prima facie case against either or both the accused for framing of charge against them for the offence of abetment of suicide punishable u/s 306/34 IPC. Consequently both the accused persons are discharged for the offence punishable u/s 306/34 IPC.
34. However, in view of provisions of Section 437 A Cr.P.C., the accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond/surety bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of like amount for the period of six months.
SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 22 of 2335. After furnishing of surety bonds, file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court
Dated:09.05.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-02, East,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
SC No.76/08 State v. Brat Pal Singh & Ors. Page 23 of 23