Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kana Ram vs State & Anr on 1 May, 2013
1 S.B.Criminal Revision Petition No. 558/2012 Kana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order : 01.05.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Mr.Kamlesh Sharma, for the petitioner.
Mr.A.R.Nikub, P.P.for the State.
Mr.J.S.Choudhary, Sr.Counsel assisted by Mr.Pradeep Choudhary, for the respondent.
The present revision petition has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying that the order dated 12.06.2012 whereby petitioner was charged for offence under Section 306 IPC by learned Sessions Judge Pali be quashed.
Briefly stated, Suresh Chandra-complainant lodged a FIR on 17.01.2012 stating that his elder brother Amrit Lal was resident of Pali. Petitioner due to strained relations with Amrit Lal had instituted a case under the provisions of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against Amrit Lal elder brother of complainant, due to which Amrit Lal was feeling harassed. It was further alleged that petitioner used to give threats to Amrit Lal, elder brother of complainant that he shall send him to Jail and his house shall be put for auction. It is stated that due to threats given by the petitioner, elder brother Amrit Lal used to feel mentally harassed. Accused- petitioner, two months before the occurrence got a case registered against Amrit Lal for offence under Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Complainant on 17.01.2012 at about 11.30 p.m. learnt that one person has burnt himself near the railway lines. Complainant went there and found that the person, who died due to burn injury was his brother Amrit Lal. Complainant lodged a FIR regarding death of his brother Amrit Lal alleging abetment on the part of the petitioner to the suicide committed by this brother. The above said FIR 2 was investigated, statements of the witnesses were recorded and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted and accused was sent for trial. On 12.06.2012 Court had formulated charge against the petitioner Kana Ram S/o Mishri Lal caste Meghwal resident of C/S-88, Shivaji Nagar, Pali. (Raj.) for an offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.
Broadly charge stated that accused petitioner two months before 02.01.2012 had got registered false case against deceased Amrit Lal. The FIR was found not to be true by the Police but still accused used to harass Amrit Lal saying that he will involve him in a case under the provisions of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and will get him dismissed from service and will put his house for auction and send him behind the bars. Due to the harassment caused Amrit Lal committed suicide and petitioner having abetted the same committed offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even entire prosecution case is taken at its face value, charge formulated cannot be sustained and no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against petitioner.
Counsel for the State assisted by Shri Pradeep Choudhary has submitted that it was not only one stray incident but continuance infliction of harassment by the petitioner which had led deceased to commit suicide hence it amount to abetment to suicide.
I have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions advanced by counsel for the parties. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC and the same read 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 3 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 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.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. "
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998 has held that mere allegations of the harassment to the deceased is not sufficient to attract ingredients of the abetment to suicide, till accused goad, provoke and urge the deceased to commit suicide.
It has no where come in the evidence that accused petitioner intended that deceased should commit suicide. Number of persons are falsely implicated in a criminal cases but they do not commit suicide. The Court has to take into consideration reaction of the ordinary prudent man but not of hyper sensitive person. Further more in the present case, it has not been stated that when last threat was given, the case at the instance of accused was registered against deceased two months before the occurrence, there was sufficient cooling time for the deceased to reflect and see better side of the picture.
From perusal of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that deceased was in great stress and depression. It is difficult to rely upon the prosecution case and hold that because of the registration of case at the instance of the petitioner and 4 threats given by him, deceased had committed suicide.
In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of view that charge of offence under Section 306 formulated against the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Hence the present petition is accepted and impugned order framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 306 IPC is quashed.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA), J.
Bharti/