Delhi District Court
State vs Harpreeet Singh on 3 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01), CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 28597/2016 CNR No. DLCT01-001843-2013
FIR No. 19/2008
U/Sec. 306/174-A IPC
P.S. Nabi Karim
STATE VERSUS HARPREET SINGH
(i) SC No. of the case : 28597/2016
(ii) Date of commission of offence : 18/19th August 2007
(iii) Name, parentage and address : Harpreet Singh
S/o Sh. Bachitar Singh
R/o Village Sherpur
Distt. Sangrur, Punjab &
Nearby Pass Venus Gas
Agency, Ajanta Nagar
PS City Dhuri,
Distt. Sangrur, Punjab.
(iv) Offence complained of : U/Section 306/174-A IPC
(v) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(vi) Final order : Accused Harpreet Singh is
acquitted for the offence
u/Sec.306/174-A IPC.
Date of Institution : 13.01.2014
Date of Judgment reserved on : 27.05.2024
Date of Judgment : 03.06.2024
JUDGMENT
SC No. 28597/2016
FIR No. 19/2008
State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 1 of 50
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1. In the present matter FIR no. 19/08 dated 24.01.2008 was registered at PS Nabi Karim on complaint of Sh. Avtar Singh. Sh. Avtar Singh has filed complaint case which is Ex.PX and the complaint is dated 13.12.2007 filed against 09 accused persons. In the complaint it is alleged by the complainant who is father of the deceased Sukhvinder Kaur. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant does the work of brick laying and engaged in petty contracts. He is resident of PS Payal, Distt. Ludhiana. Marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused no. 1 Dara Singh at Fatehgarh District Punjab in the year 1988. Sh. Dara Singh was working as Nazir in Sangrur Court, District Sangrur Punjab who is resident of gali no. 2, Defence Colony, Maler Kotla, Sangrur.
Accused no. 2 is sister-in-law of accused no. 1. Accused no. 3 and 4 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased. Accused no. 5 and 6 are brother-in-law and sister-in-law of accused no. 1. Accused no. 7 is son of accused no. 5 and 6. Accused no. 8 and 9 are sisters of accused no. 1. The deceased had two children out of the wedlock. A boy was born in the year 1990 namely Sh. Swaranjit Singh and another boy was born in the year 1992 namely Sh. Arvinder Singh. Around in the year 1995 the accused person demanding Rs.50,000/- with truck load of timber from the complainant through the deceased Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur. When the complainant showed his inability to give dowry then the accused person started torturing the daughter of complainant, beating was given, the deceased was subjected to domestic violence and she was thrown away from matrimonial home by the accused and forced to go to the house of SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 2 of 50 her father. A petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was also instituted in which compromise was arrived by the deceased for the sake of her children. However, the accused person did not improve when the deceased started living again with accused no. 2 in the year 1997.
2. It is further submitted by the complainant that the accused no. 1 Sh. Dara Singh had developed illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother since the elder brother of accused no. 1 had expired in an accident in the year 1995. The name of said lady is Ms. Mahender Kaur arrayed as accused no. 2. When the deceased Ms. Sukhvinder had objected to such illicit relation to which she was subjected to domestic violence and beating in which accused no. 2 to 4 participated actively. The deceased all alone complained about the said torture to the complainant and mother of the deceased. Despite giving number of gifts and money on different ceremonial occasions the accused person was demanding more money on one pretext or another. In the month of July 2007 in a bid to eliminate late Ms. Sukhvinder the accused no. 1 started telling the deceased that deceased should go to Canada and the accused no. 1 would follow later on. The accused no. 1 also used to do illegal business of sending people to Canada without valid papers and he has made huge amount of money.
3. On 13.08.2007 when complainant went to meet his daughter then deceased has told her father about the said planning of the accused and that the deceased would visit the house of his father on 15.08.2007 from where she would go to Delhi and then to Canada. On 15.08.2007 the accused person came with the deceased at the house of complainant and SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 3 of 50 after meeting for some time they had left. On the pretext to send their daughter to Canada they had taken Rs.50,000/- from the wife of complainant. On 19.08.2007 the Delhi police had informed the complainant that their daughter had committed suicide at Delhi and on such information the complainant had identified the body of her daughter after visiting Delhi. DD No. 50/2007 under Section 174 Cr. PC dated 18.08.2007 was lodged at PS Nabi Karim, Paharganj. From police he came to know that his daughter was living alone at the time of her death at Pooja Hotel in Paharganj area who had visited the hotel on 17.08.2007. She had consumed poison. The deceased was taken to Ram Manohar hospital and the deceased told to officer Incharge that accused no. 1 Dara Singh was married to her after which one Mr. Harpreet had married her. Both of whom had deserted the deceased due to which she committed suicide by consuming poison. Police had recovered a CD, a notarized paper from the purse of deceased mentioning about her divorce with accused Dara Singh, a photograph of marriage with so called Harpreet and a suicide note bearing signature in English. It is submitted by the complainant that her daughter had never signed in English language. In the CD a video footage was their where his daughter was telling that she was committing suicide out of her own free will. On this it is complained that it is a fabricated CD as someone must be holding the camera and her daughter was forced into such alleged act of suicide. Someone must have converted the recording in CD and later on placed it in the purse of his daughter to show it as suicide. The alleged divorce papers with accused no. 1 are not legal documents and there is conspiracy to kill his daughter. After death of his daughter her baggage was taken to accused no. 1 in a Tata Safari by a driver named Patti in SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 4 of 50 vehicle no. MH03H9104 who had mobile no. 9888291484. The vehicle was taken from taxi stand of one Gurdeep Singh at Ludhiana. It is alleged that the deceased was killed by the accused person in a planned conspiracy that she would go to Canada followed by her husband accused no. 1. It is prayed for trial of accused person under Section 302/34/201 IPC/120B IPC. The ld. MM had directed the SHO PS Nabi Karim to register the FIR in the year 2008 and investigate the case.
4. The FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC and IO Sh. Rajeev Gulati has investigated the offence. DD No. 50B dated 18.08.2007 was registered at 4:45 PM at PS Nabi Karim by duty Ct. Subhash on receipt of information on telephone from RML hospital that one Sukhvinder Kaur had consumed something and lying in unconscious condition. The Sukhvinder Kaur was admitted at RML hospital by Ram Prakash resident of hotel Pooja. The DD entry was marked to ASI Ashwani Kumar who alongwith Ct. Vikram had reached the hospital and collected the MLC from which it was revealed that the deceased had ingested the tablet of Sulphaz (Ammonium Phosphide). She was unfit for statement. Another DD entry no. 11A was registered at 8:45 AM on 19.08.2007 by duty Ct. Subhash that Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur had expired. The postmortem of deceased was conducted on 22.08.2007. The husband of deceased Sh. Dara Singh did not turn up to collect her body despite having information through Constable of local police and father of the deceased has received the body on 22.08.2007.
5. The deceased had married with Mr. Dara Singh on 17.04.1988 who had two sons. Sh. Dara Singh and the late Sukhvinder Kaur had SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 5 of 50 arranged visit of Sh. Jagmohan and his brother-in-law namely Sh. Gurdeep Singh with their family member including Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur who is wife of Jagmohan, their son Karamvir and daughter Navjot, Ms. Karamjit wife of Sh. Gurdeep, another son Amanpreet besides the visit of late Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur to Canada. Jagmohan and Gurdeep had handed over Rs.4 lakhs to Dara Singh and the deceased Sukhvinder Kaur at Defence Colony, Maler Kotla. Jagmohan and Gurdeep had came to Delhi and stayed at hotel Mount Shiva, Paharganj on 16.08.2007. When Jagmohan contacted Dara Singh after arrival at Delhi for his visit at Canada then Dara Singh had asked Jagmohan to contact the deceased Sukhvinder Kaur on which the deceased Sukhvinder Kaur came to hotel Mount Shiva on 16.08.2007 around 8 AM to 9 AM in a taxi. The deceased had handed over one big bag, one attache, one envelope to Sh. Jaspal Singh who is driver of Jagmohan with the direction to hand them over to Dara Singh. The documents pertaining to visit of Jagmohan and his family to Canada were also handed over to Jaspal Singh by the deceased. The flight to Canada was at 5 PM on 18.08.2007 and at that time deceased did not turn up to visit to Canada and on telephonic contact it was found that the deceased was admitted at RML hospital after consuming some substance. Jagmohan and Gurdeep also visited to the hospital and apprised Dara Singh about the situation. Dara Singh had advised them to run away from RML hospital on which Jagmohan with his family members came back to Punjab by bus and visited Dara Singh no 19.08.2007 at his Maler Kotla residence.
6. The deceased had arrived at Delhi on 16.08.2007 and stayed at hotel Pooja at Paharganj. She went out of hotel around 11 AM and SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 6 of 50 returned back after one hour. The deceased had intimated the hotel manager that she has consumed some poisonous substance and she was feeling uneasy and she wants to make a statement to police. The manager had shifted her to RML hospital and the duty constable at hospital had recorded DD No. 50B on 18.08.2007 at 4:45 PM. The personal belonging of deceased were sealed and blood sample were also taken. The viscera was preserved for post mortem. In the viscera report the opinion of doctor was that death was due to Aluminium Phosphide poisoning. FIR no. 19/08 dated 24.01.2008 under Section 306 IPC was registered at PS Nabi Karim on complaint of father of deceased Sh. Avtar Singh filed under Section 156(3) Cr. PC.
7. Dara Singh who was working as Nazir in Sangrur Court, District Punjab was got married with the deceased in the year 1988. The elder brother of Dara Singh had expired in an accident in the year 1995 when Dara Singh started demanding Rs.50,000/- alongwith truck load of timber from the daughter of the complainant who informed the complainant in this regard. When the demands were not fulfilled then the Dara Singh had tortured the deceased, beaten and thrown out of the house by Dara Singh. A petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed, which is Mark H on record. On assurance of Dara Singh the deceased was taken back at her matrimonial home in the year 1997. Dara Singh had develop illicit relation with the wife of his deceased brother namely Ms. Mahinder Kaur wife of late Gurmeet Singh. Dara Singh is also involved in sending people unauthorisedly to Canada. Dara Singh used to taunt and assault the deceased regularly on the ground of not bringing enough dowry. When deceased had objected to the same then SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 7 of 50 she was subjected to domestic violence and physical assault. Accused no. 2 to 4 had actively participated in such assault as per the complaint by the father of the deceased. From time to time deceased had informed her father in this regard. On 13.08.2007 when complainant went to meet his daughter then she told him that in the month of July 2007 in a bid to eliminate the deceased the accused Dara Singh and others started telling the deceased that she should go to Canada and after some time Dara Singh will leave his job and follow her to Canada with the children. The Dara Singh had taken the pretext that he had amassed huge wealth and he could be caught if he go with the deceased to Canada and in this process certain documents were also got signed from the deceased by Dara Singh. The deceased could not understand such documents as she is 10th class pass only and could not read and write English language. The complainant was informed by his daughter that she will visit to the house of complainant on 15.08.2007 and she will go to Delhi from where she will go to Canada. On 15.08.2007 Dara Singh alongwith the deceased came to the house of complainant to Kaddon village with other person and met the mother of deceased. Complainant was not on talking term with Dara Singh. The wife of complainant also give Rs.50,000/-. On 19.08.2007 a Constable from Delhi police visited to the complainant and told about the death of their daughter.
8. The deceased had told the police officer Incharge at RML hospital that she was married to Dara Singh but later she married to accused Harpreet. Accused Harpreet has deserted her and that is why she has consumed poison. The statement was recorded in presence of Executive Magistrate from the hotel room. The police had recovered a CD, SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 8 of 50 notarised paper showing divorce with Dara Singh, a photograph of marriage with her so called husband accused Harpreet and the so called suicide note in English language. It is claimed that the deceased never used to sign in English language as she did not understand English language properly. When the CD was recorded then some person must be holding the camera to record the video and the deceased was not in a position to operate electronic gadgets. The recording was converted into CD and put into the purse of deceased before her going out from the hotel room. The divorce papers are also signed in English language which deceased did not understand. The baggage of deceased was taken from hotel to residence of Dara Singh by a driver named Patti who works under taxi stand of one Gurdeep Singh.
9. The FSL, Rohini vide report dated 20.05.2010 had confirmed that the suicide note was in handwriting of deceased which was got translated from official Translator Sh. Lakhbir Singh. In examination of viscera Aluminium Phosphide was found in stomach Ex.1A, in liver, spleen and kidney Ex.1B, in blood sample Ex.1C. Mobile call details could not be retrieved by the police. During investigation it is found that the marriage certificate with Sh. Harpreet Singh was not registered. Money was transferred to Dharmender @ Sonu who was known to the accused Harpreet as father of accused Harpreet had political relations with Sh. Dharmender. The family members of accused Harpreet Singh had claimed that they had disowned accused Harpreet. From Registrar, Ghaziabad it was confirmed that the marriage certificate of accused Harpreet and Jaswinder Kaur was not registered. The stamp papers were purchased from vendors at Maler Kotla and Sangrur on which divorce of SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 9 of 50 marriage was recorded and loss of passport was mentioned. One ticket in the name of deceased from Delhi to Mumbai dated 17.08.2007 has been verified and the ticket was not refunded from the travel agent. However the status of ticket could not be confirmed from Jet Light Airlines. Jagmohan has confirmed collection of money by deceased for arranging their visit to Canada with family. The CD recovered was not found working by FSL, Rohini. The IO had investigated allegations in suicide note by the deceased against accused Harpreet Singh.
10. The charge against accused Harpreet Singh was framed on 07.02.2014 under Section 306/174-A IPC to which accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined PW-1 to PW-30 and PE stands closed by the order of the Court. Thereafter statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC on 15.11.2019 and accused has preferred to lead evidence in defence. DW-1 was examined and vide order dated 21.12.2021 DE stands closed on the statement of ld. Counsel for the accused. At the stage of final arguments application under Section 311 Cr. PC was moved on behalf of prosecution which was allowed vide order dated 21.01.2023 to examine witness namely Dara Singh. Thereafter supplementary statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 15.04.2023. Accused has preferred not to lead any evidence in defence and DE stands closed.
11. Final arguments are heard on behalf of both the parties and record perused.
11.1 Ld. Counsel for accused has relied on following citations:
SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 10 of 50(i) Under Section 306 IPC r/w Section 107 IPC ld.
Counsel has relied on citation titled Ramesh Chander Sibbal vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) in Crl. Rev. P. 277/2009 dated 13.08.2009 = 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) at relevant para no. 6 and 7.
(ii) Under Section 174A IPC ld. Counsel has relied on citation titled Sumit & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors. in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 17560 of 2023 dated 08.01.2024 = 2024 Legal Eagle (ALD) 16 : 2024 (2) ADJ 173.
12. To prove the charged offence it has to be seen first whether offence under Section 306 IPC is made out or not. The necessary ingredients under Section 306 IPC are laid down as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled State Govt of NCT of Delhi vs Hanuman Singh Bisht & Anr. on 10 October, 2023 in Crl. Rev. P. 3/2017 = (2023) 5 HCC (Del) 579 : 2023 SCC Online Del 6474 has held as under:
4.4 The Supreme Court in Asim Shariff V National Investigation Agency, (2019) 7 SCC 148 opined that the trial court is not expected or supposed to hold a mini trial for the purpose of marshalling the evidence on record. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka V M.R. Hiremath, (2019) 7 SCC 515 held that it is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. The Supreme Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh V Mohammad Maqbool Magrey& Others, Criminal Appeal No. 001041 of 2022 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Criminal) no 4599 OF 2021) decided on 26th July, 2022 observed as under:-
Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 11 of 50 material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (See: Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC
217).
5. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide and 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.
The abetment is defined under Section 107 IPC which reads 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 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 facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.
5.1 The Supreme Court in various decisions has considered scope of section 306 IPC in ascertain culpability of the accused. The Supreme Court in Geo Varghese V State of Rajasthan and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873 has re-examined the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC and observed as under:-
15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 12 of 50 offence and prescribes punishment for the same.
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh has defined the word instigate' as under:- Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act.
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its corelation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr(2010) 12 SCC 190, it was observed as under:-
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 the Supreme 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.
5.2 The Supreme Court in M. Arjunan V State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 considered ingredients of section 306 IPC in detail and observed as under:-
The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are:
(i) the abetment;
(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.
5.3 The Supreme Court in Ude Singh & Others V State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under:-
16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 13 of 50 direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide.
As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. 5.4 The Supreme Court in Mariano Anto Bruno & another V The Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 1628 of 2022 decided on 12.10.2022 after referring above referred decisions rendered by the SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 14 of 50 Supreme Court in context of culpability under section 306 IPC observed as under:-
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 their 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.
5.4.1 The Supreme Court also referred Ramesh Kumar V State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein the conviction for the offence under Section 306 IPC was set aside as ingredients of Section 306 IPC were not established. It was observed as under:-
20. 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. The present one is not a case 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 been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
21. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr.10, this Court has cautioned that the Court 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 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.
5.5 The Supreme court in Gurcharan Singh V State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 observed that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 15 of 50 the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability.
5.6 The Supreme Court in Kashibai & Others V The State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.000627of 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8584/2022) decided on 28.02.2023 observed that to bring the case within the purview of 'Abetment' under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide.
6. The Supreme Court in Netai Dutta V State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 regarding suicide note observed as under:-
5. There is absolutely no averment in the alleged suicide note that the present appellant had caused any harm to him or was in any way responsible for delay in paying salary to deceased Pranab Kumar Nag. It seems that the deceased was very much dissatisfied with the working conditions at the workplace. But, it may also be noticed that the deceased after his transfer in 1999 had never joined the office at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata and had absented himself for a period of two years and that the suicide took place on a 16-2-2001. It cannot be said that the present appellant had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or he was responsible for the suicide of Pranab Knmar Nag. An offence under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetment for the commission of the crime. The parameters of ―abetment have been stated in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 107 says that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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, or the person should have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission.
The Explanation to Section 107 says that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of ―abetment.
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 wilful 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.
SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 16 of 506.1 The Supreme Court in Madan Mohan Singh V State of Gujurat & another, Criminal Appeal No 1291 of 2008 decided on 17.08.2010 regarding evidentiary value of suicide note opined as under:-
8.....We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306, IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306, IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107, IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306, IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306, IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.
10. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work.
7. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is legally not sustainable and erroneous as the trial court indulged in a mini trial at stage of passing the impugned order. The trial court has not appreciated the suicide note left by the SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 17 of 50 deceased in right and legal perspective which is reflective of clear, deliberate and unambiguous role of the respondents in abetting the suicide of the deceased. The impugned order is not supported by well-defined reasons.
7.1 The counsel for the respondents argued that it is reflecting that the deceased was not happy with relation of the respondent no 1 with the respondent no 2 which cannot be accepted as an act to instigate the deceased to take extreme steps. There was no positive act on part of the respondents which can be said to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The trial court has rightly passed the impugned order after considering relevant facts and material. The present petition is liable to be dismissed. The counsel for the respondent submitted written submissions and relied on judgement titled as Arnab Manoranjan Goswami V State of Maharashtara (2021) 2 SCC 427, and also cited other case laws.
8. It is reflecting that the deceased was son of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.1 was not staying with his family including the deceased. The respondent no.1 was not taking appropriate care of his family. The respondent no.1 was/is staying with the respondent no 2. There is nothing on record to establish that marriage between Saraswati Devi, mother of the deceased and the respondent no.1 has even been dissolved in legal way. The deceased was not happy with relationship between the respondents and was under depression. The respondents also implicated the deceased and his brother in a criminal case under sections 307/34 IPC. Saraswati Devi, mother of the deceased also filed a petition for claiming maintenance against the respondent no.1. The family of the respondent no.1 also filed various complaints against the respondents. The prime act as per prosecution which compelled the deceased to commit suicide was relationship between the respondents and the respondent no. 1 was not taking care and did not maintain his family including the deceased. The issue which needs judicial consideration is that these acts are sufficient to compel the deceased to commit suicide.
9. It is an accepted legal position which is emerging from above referred decisions that abetment to commit suicide should involve positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide and there should be clear mens rea to commit the offence. The act complained of must be intended to push the deceased to commit suicide and there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. The Court should look for cogent and convincing acts of incitement towards the commission of suicide. The mere allegations of harassment caused to the deceased by the accused would not suffice unless such acts compel the person to commit suicide and such offending acts must be proximate to the time of occurrence. If the deceased SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 18 of 50 happened to be hypersensitive and his action of committing suicide is not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide then it may not safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. However if the accused by his acts and continuous course of conduct creates a situation leading the deceased to commit suicide, then case may be covered under section 306 IPC. There should be evidences pertaining to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
10. The deceased was not happy with relationship between the respondents rather has not accepted their relationship. The deceased was under depression as reflected from suicide note. Mere relationship of the respondent no 1 with the respondent no 2 cannot be said that the respondents had in any way instigated the deceased to commit suicide or were responsible for the suicide of the deceased. The suicide note only reflects dissatisfaction of the deceased due to relationship of the respondents. There is absolutely nothing in suicide note or FIR which could be suggestive of abetment to commit suicide on the part of the respondents. The suicide note is just expressing dissatisfaction of the deceased for conduct of the respondent no.1 towards the family and psychological condition of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. The suicide note does not reflect that the respondents ever intended the deceased to commit suicide or end his life. Even if the respondent no.1 was living with the respondent no.2 without divorcing his wife i.e. mother of the deceased and was not taking appropriate care for family, it does not mean that the respondents ever intended to incite the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing on the part of the respondents which can establish their intention to compel the deceased to commit suicide as required under section 107 IPC. The suicide note is merely reflective of expression of anguish and anger of the deceased which he felt for the conduct of the respondents and in particular conduct of his father i.e. the respondent no.1. The contents of the suicide note do not either refer or make out the offence punishable under section 306 IPC against the respondents. The evidences against the respondents as collected after investigation are not sufficient and definite to put them to trial for the offences punishable under sections 306/34 IPC. The pain and sufferings of the deceased during his life time and the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased are understandable as a young boy has committed suicide but the sympathies, pain and suffering of the complainant cannot be transformed or translated into legal remedies i.e. for criminal prosecution against the respondents.
13. Vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G the wedding card/Ex.PW1/H SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 19 of 50 between the deceased and Sh. Dara Singh was seized. Mark H is petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which was filed by the deceased against her husband Sh. Dara Singh which is dated 26.08.1996. It is submitted in the petition that the husband of the deceased has withdrawn from the society of deceased since last six months without any reasonable or probable excuse and prayer is made for restitution of conjugal rights. Ex.PW27/A is seizure memo of documents/articles used by Sh. Dara Singh that one Jaspal driver on 17.08.2007 had delivered such articles at the house of Sh. Dara Singh. It also contain suicide note in Punjabi language of the deceased bearing her signature and date. The marriage registration certificate with the accused Harpreet and the deceased is Mark PW30/B from the Registrar Hindu Marriage Ghaziabad, U.P. The certificate is dated 08.08.2007. One settlement deed between the deceased and her husband Sh. Dara Singh is dated 14.07.2007 vide which the husband and wife decided to stay separate. The custody and liability of children was with husband Sh. Dara Singh. Both parties will not fight any legal case against each other and agreed to withdraw the pending cases. It was agreed that the deceased will not file the case against her husband regarding maintenance, dowry or other legal action. It appears that the deceased has married the accused Harpreet under the belief that this settlement deed is a valid settlement deed with her husband and this document is not marked as exhibit by the prosecution in the evidence. The marriage certificate Ex.PW30/B mentions that the marriage was solemnized on 02.08.2007 at Gurudwara Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Hence the marriage certificate is based on the said solemnization of marriage at Gurudwara on 02.08.2007 with the accused. One fact to be noted is that deceased being a Sikh by religion is SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 20 of 50 covered under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Hence the divorce with her husband Sh. Dara Singh of the deceased has to be under Hindu Law only and the settlement deed mentioned above has no validity in the eyes of law. Hence the said settlement deed has no evidentiary value as far as divorce of deceased is concerned with her husband Sh. Dara Singh. Even after the settlement deed the marriage of deceased with her husband continue to exist in view of which marriage certificate Ex.PW30/B has no validity under the eyes of law. Other than this marriage dated 02.08.2007 at Gurudwara Kavi Nagar is also not proved by the prosecution on record. The marriage has to be solemnized in terms of Section 7 and 8 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In terms of the said section the marriage has to be solemnized as per the customary rights existing between the parties on such date other than Saptapadi. In the present case the parties have failed to prove that the marriage between the accused and the deceased had occurred as per the customs between them on 02.08.2007 at Gurudwara Kavi Nagar. Hence on the face of it the deceased was wife of Sh. Dara Singh on the date of her death.
14. Vide Ex.PW5/B the register of hotel Pooja Palace, Arya Nagar, Paharganj, Delhi was seized whereas at serial no. 1 on 10.07.2007 at number 303 the arrival entry at 5 AM of the deceased is recorded. At serial no. 1578 dated 21.02.2008 is the last entry made by the deceased. The body of the deceased was identified by Sh. Gurnam Singh who is uncle of the deceased and the identification memo is Ex.PW15/B. Vide DD No. 50B dated 18.08.2007 which was recorded under Section 174 Cr. PC at PS Nabi Karim is Ex.PW15/D. The ASI Ashwani Kumar had prepared a report for sending at District Sangrur, Punjab. The IO has SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 21 of 50 written a letter dated 19.12.2011 to the Registrar Hindu Marriage Ghaziabad to verify the marriage certificate between the accused and the deceased to which reply was submitted by Registrar Ghaziabad dated 22.12.2011 that the said registration certificate does not pertain to their office. Both the above documents are not exhibited by the prosecution.
15. The FSL report is Ex.PW25/A dated 20.05.2010 which has reported after laboratory examination that the person who has wrote A1/1, A1/2 to A8 and A8/1 had also written the question writing and signature Q1, Q2, Q2/1, Q3 to Q5, Q5/1, Q6, Q6/1, Q7, Q7/1 to Q7/4 in the agreement between the deceased and Sh. Dara Singh dated 14.07.2007 which is mentioned above as settlement agreement that they are written by the same person. The writings were compared with the admitted writings of the deceased and detailed reasons are mentioned in the report for such conclusion. No divergence were seen between the questioned and standard writings/signatures. The similarities were found significant and sufficient and accidental coincidence is excluded. No opinion could be expressed on Q8 in comparison with S1 to S3 in absence of admitted signatures of said person of the contemporary period.
16. The translated version of suicide note is available on record which records that the accused has spoiled the life of the deceased due to which she was taking poison. It is mentioned that she celebrated the second marriage with the accused and she was staying since last four months with the accused. Her first family was very good and she was staying happily in her first family who was Sh. Dara Singh. The accused SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 22 of 50 Harpreet was coming to her home claiming himself as a doctor and after threatening and putting the deceased into fear the accused had established non-consensual physical relation with the deceased. She could not tell this fact to anybody. The accused continue to put pressure on her telling that his father is SHO and he will get removed the husband of deceased namely Sh. Dara Singh from the job. The accused had claimed to the deceased that the grandfather of the accused had direct relation with Badal one politician and if the deceased will not take divorce then he will get killed her husband. The photograph were taken at Fatehgarh Gurudwara and they were staying together since two months. The accused used to commit treachery and lie against the deceased. One person namely Dharmendra @ Sonu who is private doctor at Chamkor Sahib from whom the accused had taken help to marry the deceased. Accused has also taken the deceased to the uncle of the said doctor Dharmendra and also at the house of the said doctor. The accused started blackmailing the deceased. The accused did not allow the deceased to talk with anyone and kept the deceased always in fear. She like her children very much. The accused threatened the deceased that he will spread bad name of the deceased. She had collected money on the saying of the accused and continue to stay with the accused. The money was given to the accused. The Dharmendra doctor also used to help the accused by getting money deposited in the account of accused through the deceased. Receipt of which are in the bag of deceased. It is mentioned in the said suicide note that she was working together with the accused and the accused had also left his job. She has photograph of marriage with accused. The address of the accused is also mentioned. The translated version is Ex.PW19/A which is attested by Insp.
SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 23 of 50Jagminder Singh. The deceased has mentioned in the note that she is ending her life for the reason that the accused had distanced the deceased from her family and for the fear of bad name she is taking this extreme step. The gold of the deceased is also with the accused.
17. Another forensic science laboratory report is Ex.PW13/C. The result opinion is that Ex.1 was found containing Aluminium Phosphide. Ex.PW13/A is another result of forensic examination. The Ex.1A which found containing Phosphide, metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, phosphide, alkaloids. Ex.1D did not found containing pesticides. Ex.1D is preservative sample which is saturated solution of common salt. Ex.PW9/A is another FSL report containing CD in parcel 1 marked as Ex.1 which was found non accessible on examination due to unknown reason. Parcel 2 is another CD marked as Ex.2 which found containing one video file. There is no indication of alteration in the said video, the video was recorded in a studio having two illumination sound of light. There is no investigation by IO that when and where such video was recorded. The nature of camera used and with what kind of user of such camera is available. The date, month and year with time of recording of video is not investigated.
18. The arrest memo of the accused is Ex.PW27/A, the personal search is Ex.PW29/B and the disclosure statement is Ex.PW29/G. In the disclosure statement it is mentioned that the accused was working under a veterinary doctor at Maler Kotla, Punjab and the doctor used to send him clients. The husband of the deceased used to come to the doctor to get his dog treated and that is how he is acquainted with the deceased.
SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 24 of 50The father of the accused was in Punjab police. He married the deceased in Gurudwara and from time to time he was taking money from the deceased. He had also taken a gold chain from the deceased. The postmortem report of the deceased is Ex.PW26/A and opinion in this respect is Ex.PW26/B which records that death was due to Aluminum Phosphide poisoning. The voter ID card of the deceased is Ex.PW24/A. Ex.PW30/DB is a certificate from ld. District & Sessions Judge, Sangrur that Sh. Dara Singh, Naib Nazir was on casual leave on 29.08.2007 and he did not avail any earned leave during the month August, 2007. The correctness of leave record of Dara Singh is in doubt when as per PW-1 the PW-30 Dara Singh had visited Kaddon village on 15.08.2007. The leave record is in contradiction to deposition of PW-4.
19. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has physically and mentally tortured the deceased and thereby instigated her to commit suicide on 18/19.08.2007 between 4:45 PM to 8:45 AM at Pooja Hotel, Arya Nagar, Nabi Karim, Delhi. The first ingredient the prosecution has to prove that there was abetment by the accused and thereby he instigates the victim to do that thing. The evidence must be capable to suggest such intention. The state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible. The reference has to be in respect to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. Merely harassment or show of anger will fall short of offence of abetment of suicide. However continuous irritation or annoyance by words or deeds until the victim reacts then that case can be abetment of suicide. It has to be in reference of delicate analysis of human behaviour in respect to the psyche of the accused and the victim. There must be proof of direct or indirect acts. However such acts must be positive SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 25 of 50 action in the nature of act or omission sufficiently proximate to the time of occurrence of the crime. The instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggested of the consequence with a reasonable certainty. The victim must not be left with any other option. Hyper sensitive differences are not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to commit suicide. The conscience of the Court should be satisfied. The state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible.
20. PW-1 who is father of the deceased has levelled in his complaint allegations against the husband of the deceased whereas during the course of investigation police did not find any evidence against the husband of the deceased. To the contrary in her suicide note the deceased had no grievance against her husband. This case is not filed against the husband of the deceased. The accused Harpreet Singh is not known to PW-1 and PW-1 has deposed that accused Harpreet Singh has no role behind the murder of his daughter/deceased. It is deposed by PW-1 at page 2 of her examination-in-chief that the suicide note are not in handwriting of his daughter which does not bear her signature. The suicide note are Marked B1 to Mark B4. However prosecution has not put in evidence of PW-1 that the said suicide note were not in handwriting of the deceased. The burden to prove the above fact is on the prosecution. PW-1 had given one notebook to the police seizure memo of which is Ex.PW1/E. It is deposed by PW-1 in the Ikrarnama Faisla Bahami which is alleged settlement with her husband Sh. Dara Singh does not bear the signature of her daughter and the said document is Mark C1 to Mark C3. He also do not identify his signature at point B and it is claimed that such signature must have been forged by Sh. Dara SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 26 of 50 Singh. However in evidence of PW-1 such forgery is not proved by prosecution on record. The photocopy of affidavit Mark E and the signature of deceased on it are challenged by PW-1. However prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to show that it does not bear the signature of the deceased. PW-1 has admitted petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which is Mark H filed by the deceased against her husband Dara Singh. To the contrary the PW-1 has denied that accused Harpreet Singh has physically and mentally tortured his late daughter.
21. PW-3 is son of the deceased and who has deposed that the accused used to come at their house and sometimes he used to come with his friend Dharmender. When his father came to know about the relation of accused with his mother then his father tried to stop the deceased despite of with her mother continued relation with the accused. With such relation divorce had taken place between the deceased and the father of PW-3 in which his maternal grandfather/PW-1 came to their house and took the deceased with him. The deceased started living with her parents in district Ludhiana. It is deposed that after some months of leaving her mother one taxi driver came to their house with a suit case which was later opened by the police. It found containing marriage certificate of the deceased with accused Harpreet, one suicide note and some photographs with the deceased. Divorce papers were between deceased and father of PW-3 who is Dara Singh. Some clothes and one CD was also found and PW-3 had played the CD. Hence PW-3 has proved that the deceased had left her home which is the house of Dara Singh. The deceased has left her home out of her own will to live with the accused Harpreet and she SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 27 of 50 did not listen to her husband Dara Singh in this regard. This has created doubt in the suicide note of the deceased containing the statement that under the threat of accused Harpreet the deceased has left her husband. To the contrary the deceased could not be stopped despite intervention of her husband Dara Singh in not to continue her relationship with the accused Harpreet.
22. It is deposed by PW-4 Sh. Trilok Singh that on 15.08.2007 the deceased came to the home of her father alongwith her husband Sh. Dara Singh and other in laws. She had come to meet her parents while she was going abroad. She had left alongwith her husband and in laws to Delhi for taking flight for going abroad. He is Panch of the village.
23. PW-5 is Manager of hotel Pooja Palace. He has deposed that on 18.08.2007 the hotel room was booked by Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur. The deceased went to the hotel alone and she had told to the Manager of the hotel her husband would come to pick her from the hotel. Initially room no. 402 was provided which was changed to Room No. 102 on request of deceased. Around 11 AM she had left the hotel informing that she was going out for breakfast. The deceased returned after one hour and asked the Manager to call the police as she want to make the statement. The deceased was feeling dizziness. The Manager had taken the deceased to hospital. Nobody came in hotel to meet the deceased till she remained there. No order for eating was placed by her. The necessary seizure memo of copy of the hotel register is Ex.PW5/A. The entry at serial no. 303 dated 18.08.2007 and photocopy of entry is Ex.PW5/B. PW-6 Ct. Shankar Lal on 30.06.2008 had deposited parcel at FSL, Rohini.
SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 28 of 5024. PW-7 HC Ashok Kumar had received register of the hotel from Insp. Joginder Singh which was duly sealed with the seal of JS which he deposited at malkhana and photocopy of entry is Ex.PW7/A. Photocopy of road certificate is Ex.PW7/B. The copy of acknowledgment from FSL is Ex.PW7/C. The viscera box was sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Suresh on 25.02.2008 vide Ex.PW7/D. Ct. Amit had collected FSL report and viscera box and handed it over to PW-7. The case property was deposited in malkhana vide Ex.PW7/E which is viscera box. FSL report was handed over to IO. PW-8 is son of the deceased. He has deposed that when they used to return from school then they found sometime accused Harpreet present with his friend Dharmender at their house. Their maternal grandfather was also found sometime in the house. The father of PW-8 namely Sh. Dara Singh used to object visit of accused Harpreet in their house. However their mother has insisted the continued visit of accused to their house. Later the maternal grandfather had taken the deceased mother of PW-8 with him. After one week from that some documents of divorce was sent to their house by their maternal grandfather. Another day a taxi driver delivered a bag to their house which was later opened by Delhi police who visited their house during investigation of this case. Other than suicide note, one recorded CD, one marriage certificate between the accused and the deceased, 40 to 50 photographs of their mother with the accused were recovered from the said bag. All the said articles were taken into possession by the police. He do not know if his father went to Delhi. It is admitted as correct by PW-8 that he told to the police that one year prior to death of his mother, the mother daily visited their house and whenever she visited then she SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 29 of 50 really had a talk with them. He does not remember if 5-7 days prior to death the deceased has visited the house of Sh. Dara Singh.
25. PW-11 is the driver Jaspal Singh who had taken articles given by the deceased on the direction of one Sh. Jagmohan. Sh. Jagmohan came in taxi with his family and family of his brother in law to Delhi. On asking of Sh. Jagmohan the PW-1 had delivered 2-3 bags and other articles of one madam/deceased which are to be delivered to Sh. Dara Singh resident of Maler Kotla. He had handed over the articles to Sh. Dara Singh. He is not the owner of the taxi. Sh. Dara Singh had asked him not to disclose anyone about handing over of such articles of the deceased to him.
26. PW-16 Ms. Harmesh Kaur from Gurudwara District Roop Nagar, Punjab has deposed that accused came alongwith one middle age woman at Gurdwara alongwith some girls and boys in the year 2007. They had also taken photographs. They had went to Mr. Sucha Singh for marriage. However on suspicion the marriage was not recorded. PW-16 is confronted with the recording of marriage in the register which was so stated in her statement Ex.PW16/A. PW-16 could not identify the accused. PW-20 Sh. Dharmender Singh has deposed that he is veterinary pharmacist posted at village Gaggon Ropar, Punjab who was staying on rent. There the accused came with the deceased and withdrawn money from his ATM card for a sum of Rs.1000/-to Rs.1500/- and gave it to said lady. They had stayed there for 3-4 hours and after 7-10 days he came to know from police that the lady had committed suicide. He was acquainted with the accused through one Sh. Gurvinder Singh who was classmate of PW-20 while he was studying veterinary pharmacy. PW-20 SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 30 of 50 has again deposed as PW-22 and he has deposed same facts as stated by him earlier. It is further deposed that the accused came to his residence on two occasions and stayed with him. On third occasion he came with a lady claiming her to be his wife. He did not attend their marriage. He has admitted that his mobile phone number is 9417155198 which was lost in the accident.
27. PW-23 is Dr. Bhupinder Kumar Kaushik working in Veterinary Civil Hospital, Maler Kotla. He has denied that on the request of ASI Vichitra Singh from Punjab police kept accused on training as the accused has claimed that he has done diploma in veterinary science. He knew ASI Vichitra Singh and accused is his son. He met Dara Singh in the marriage of his maternal uncle. He has seen the dog of Dara Singh. He has turned hostile and denied his entire statement earlier recorded by the police.
28. PW-25 Sh. Devak Ram from FSL, Rohini has examined the questioned documents with the admitted handwriting of the deceased and found that the person who wrote the answered documents has also written the questioned documents. His report is Ex.PW25/A. He had also examined the specimen handwriting of Avtar Singh in Ex.PW1/D and specimen handwriting of Sh. Dara Singh in Ex.PX6. The questioned documents are Ex.PX1, Ex.PX2, Ex.PX3, Ex.PX4 and Ex.PX5. The admitted documents of the deceased are Ex.PX7. A small diary containing admitted handwriting of deceased is Ex.PX8. The register bearing admitted handwriting is Ex.PX9. He has admitted that the science of developing documents is not a perfect science. It is admitted SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 31 of 50 as correct that in his report Ex.PW25/A the specimen handwriting of Sh. Dara Singh was found similar to questioned documents. He has merely given his opinion.
29. PW-30 is Sh. Dara Singh who has deposed that the deceased stayed with him till 4 months prior to her death. Deceased was his wife. They were staying in Punjab. On 27.06.2007 the deceased got a blank stamp paper asking to take divorce from him. PW-30 declined the request. The deceased came again on 14.07.2007 with her father/PW-1 with the same blank stamp paper and both of them asked him to sign the divorce paper. They told him that the paper should be notarized by them despite telling by PW-30 that divorce can be granted only by the Court. However PW-30 had signed the divorce agreement one copy of which had remained with PW-30 and another copy was with the deceased. The divorce agreement is Ex.PW30/A. On 17.08.2007 one Jaspal Singh came with Attachi and one envelope and handed over it to PW-30 after having a mobile telephone talk with the deceased. In the evening of 17.08.2007 he had opened the envelope and found the suicide letter, divorce agreement, marriage certificate with accused dated 08.08.2007, 23 marriage photographs of the accused and deceased. The suicide letter is Ex.PX4. The divorce agreement dated 14.07.2007 is Ex.PX5. He had informed the PS Maler Kotla on 18.08.2007 who did not open the said briefcase. Inspt. Sunder Lal on 22.10.2008 had opened the said briefcase during investigation of this case. The documents in the envelope were handed over to the IO vide Ex.PW27/A the seizure memo. However no written intimation to PS at Maler Kotla is proved by PW-30 on record.
SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 32 of 5030. It is noted that a CD was recovered in this case in that the deceased had given the statement in which she was exculpating PW-30 Sh. Dara Singh and she was inculpating the accused. In the FSL Report it has already come on record that the said CD was recorded when light was flashed from both sides. Therefore there must be a camera which must be used while taking the said video. The prosecution has failed to prove that by which camera this recording was done. The time of recording has also not been proved on record. Therefore it cannot be said that this recording was done by the victim alone in the hotel room. This recording must have been done somewhere else as no camera was found or seized in the hotel room. Therefore this recording may or may not be done on the day of commission of suicide by the victim. This shows that the victim came to hotel with the mind prepared to commit suicide in the hotel room. Had the same being recorded by the accused then the victim must not be naming the accused as the person on account of which suicide was being committed by the victim. The victim had written in Gurmukhi language in the suicide note and it shows that the victim was not convenient in Hindi language and English language while writing the suicide note. The signatures of the victim are in English language. In the suicide note Ex.PX4 and Ex.PX1 bear signatures in English language. However the ink in which the note is signed and the body is written is seen different in Ex.PX1. The way in which the Ex.PX1 is written shows that the person does not seek to use another page and continue to write everywhere on the page both horizontally and vertically. It appears that the persons who was writing it does not seek to utilize another page for writing the body of Ex.PX1 as if he was short of paper. Either it could be out of compulsion that there is a pre-signed blank document available SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 33 of 50 with the writer to insert maximum possible writing in the body of Ex.PX1. The ink with which the body is signed and signatures are done are not compared and it has not brought in evidence. However the FSL has found that the body in which the suicide note is written which is questioned document and signature done are similar handwriting to the answered document which are handwriting of the deceased. In such view of the matter there is no evidence that the suicide note was written on compulsion. It is deposed by PW-9 from FSL that as per his observation the video was recorded by some other person rather then person shown in the video. It shows that some person who has recorded video is the most relevant evidence and could not be traced out by the prosecution. It is deposed by PW-9 that this video was recording in a studio with two circular illumination light. According to PW-9 it was not spontaneous or natural one and it was a preplanned video recording.
31. As it is already observed that the accused may not be creating evidence against himself by inculpating himself in the video. In fact it is deposed by PW-1 that on 18.08.2007 the deceased alongwith her husband and family members of the husband had came to Delhi for going abroad whereas PW-30 had deposed that he had never visited Delhi prior to deposing in this case. It is deposed by PW-1 that accused Harpreet Singh is not known to him and has no role behind the murder of his daughter/ deceased. In his complaint under section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. the PW-1 has stated that he had went on 13.08.2007 to meet his daughter where he was told that Sh. Dara Singh/ PW-30 and the deceased would come to house of PW-1 on 15.08.2007 from where the deceased would go from India to Canada. On 15.08.2007 PW-30 Dara Singh went with SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 34 of 50 deceased to the house of PW-1 and had taken Rs.50,000/- from the wife of complainant on the pretext to send the deceased to Canada. Hence there was no planning of the deceased to commit suicide on 15.08.2007. Hence something has transpired in between 15.08.2007 to 18.08.2007 such that the suicide was committed by the deceased. Since the suicide was committed on 18.08.2007 and the video was recorded prior to 18.08.2007 which shows that the planning for suicide was done between 15.08.2007 to 17.08.2007. However the deceased had come to Delhi on 16.08.2007 to stay at hotel Mount Shiva about 8-9 AM with Jagmohan who is one of the client who had to go to Canada. Jagmohan and Gurdeep had handed over Rs.4 lakhs to the deceased and her husband Sh. Dara Singh for making the necessary arrangement to visit at Canada. PW-11 is the driver Sh. Jaspal Singh who had brought family of Jagmohan Singh and his brother-in-law and dropped them at the hotel at Paharganj, Delhi. He had collected articles of the deceased on direction of Jagmohan and handed them over to Sh. Dara Singh/PW-30 at Maler Kotla. However to PW-11 the PW-30 had asked after one-two days of delivery of the article of the deceased in that PW-11 not to disclose to any person the delivery of article of the deceased to PW-30. It was further asked by PW-30 to PW-11 that if any person ask about delivery of article then PW-11 has to say that he had dropped the articles outside the house of PW-30. The above conduct of PW-30 is not appearing reasonable in so asking PW-11 about the delivery of articles. Hence conduct of PW-30 appears suspicious.
32. Hence the documents were allegedly collected by PW-11 from the deceased on arrival of the deceased at Delhi on 16.08.2007. The SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 35 of 50 preparation of suicide must have been done between 16.08.2007 to 17.08.2007. The deceased had to go to Canada for which Rs.50,000/- were also collected by PW-30 from the father of the deceased. However what happened to such visit of the deceased to the Canada is not clear. The flight ticket to Canada had to be booked for 18.08.2007 at 5 PM. According to the suicide note of the deceased the accused has taken away her money. Now the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the money of the deceased was so taken by the accused. It is also to be proved by the prosecution that whether the tickets of the deceased to the Canada had to be booked by the accused or the deceased or the husband of deceased PW-30 and it is further to be proved that with which of the above three person the money was lying. If the tickets were booked then whether the tickets were cancelled at all at any stage before such visit or after the visit.
33.1 Now the suicide note is analysed in reference to Section 306 IPC r/w Section 107 IPC. As per the suicide note the accused was threatening the deceased that he will get removed her husband from job and believing that the deceased had established non-consensual physical relation with the accused. However PW-3 has deposed to the contrary in the examination-in-chief that when their father/PW-30 came to know about illegal relationship of the deceased with the accused then he tried to stop the deceased to have relations with the accused. It is further deposed by PW-3 that despite of this the deceased continued relations with the accused. PW-3 and PW-8 are sons of the deceased. PW-8 had similarly deposed that PW-30/father of PW-8 used to object to such relationship of deceased with the accused to which the deceased did not SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 36 of 50 listen and quarrelled with her husband so as to continue her relationship with the accused. PW-8 had further deposed that their maternal grandfather/PW-1 had sent document for divorce at their house. In view of above deposition it cannot be said that the accused was threatening the deceased to establish forcible physical relation and it has come in evidence of prosecution that the relation were consensual. The prosecution has also failed to prove on record any relationship of accused with the politician Badal or that Badal, the politician had any influence over employment of the PW-30.
33.2 Further as per deposition of PW-8 the paper of divorce were brought by PW-1/the father of the deceased. The marriage certificate registered at Ghaziabad is found to be false and no such marriage was registered there. The same was not seized from the accused and it cannot be imputed to the accused that he got done such registration as there is no such evidence on record. The alleged parcel were received by PW-30 from one driver itself is doubtful. Sh. Jaspal Singh who is driver of Jagmohan has allegedly made a talk with the deceased over telephone when he had reached at the house of PW-30 and he had also made PW- 30 to talk with deceased. However there is no such evidence of talking of deceased with PW-30 through Jaspal Singh/PW-11. It is deposed by PW- 30 that Jagmohan asked him to take 2-3 bags and other articles of one madam and deliver them to Dara Singh/PW-30. Such talk on mobile phone is deposed by PW-30 at second page of his examination-in-chief. PW-11 has not deposed so. Another point is also not clear that when Mr. Jagmohan had hired the vehicle for transportation of himself and his family then why he will allow to use said vehicle driven by PW-11 only SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 37 of 50 for the purpose of delivery of parcel of the deceased to PW-30 when he himself was not travelling in the said vehicle for such a long distance. It is not clear that who was responsible and paid fare of the taxi. In fact Sh. Jagmohan Singh also came to Delhi with his brother-in-law family to go to Canada and he also could not go to Canada. There is no investigation nor any proof by the prosecution that why the deceased, Sh. Jagmohan Singh and other person though came to Delhi for going to Canada but they could not go there.
33.3 According to the suicide note of deceased the money of the deceased were got deposited in the account of the accused and some of the receipts were recovered from PW-30 in the parcel sent by deceased to PW-30 through PW-11. However the prosecution has not proved anything on record that such amount was deposited in the account of accused unaccounted and unexplained. Even the account statement of the accused is not proved on record by calling the banker of the accused and by proving the deposits, if any, made in reference to receipts recovered from PW-30. Neither any other deposits are proved in the account of accused from which it could be said that they were extorted by the accused from the deceased. Hence prosecution has failed to prove that the accused had financially jeoparadised the deceased.
33.4 To the contrary the deceased had visited at Delhi to go to Canada before her death and before that she went to her father with PW-30 and from where PW-30 had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- as per claim of PW-1 the father of the deceased. Had there been such divorce taken place between PW-30 and deceased then it could not be possible that SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 38 of 50 Rs.50,000/- could be taken by the PW-30/the alleged previous husband from PW-1 and that too when he was already divorced as per his own statement then why he was getting involved in sending the deceased to Canada after going to father of deceased and getting money from there. Other than this why PW-30 after collecting money came back to his village and not came to Delhi to make necessary arrangements of visit of deceased to Canada creates suspicion in the conduct of PW-30. It is settled law that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of proof.
33.5 Another allegation in the suicide note is that the accused did not allow the deceased to talk with anyone and the accused always kept the deceased in fear. The accused had threatened the deceased that he will spread bad name of the deceased. As per own statement of deceased in the suicide note she had allegedly married with the accused. Having so married it is not clear that what bad name the accused will spread of the deceased. It is duty of the prosecution to prove the allegations by cogent evidence. However no such good evidence is produced on record except bald allegation in the alleged suicide note of the deceased. Hence there is no substance in the above allegation. Further, when the deceased could travel to the house of PW-30/Dara Singh and from there she could go to her father and thereafter come to Delhi shows that the deceased had liberty not only to talk with other person but she also had liberty to travel to one place to another place including travelling from one State to another State. Hence the above allegation in the suicide note has remained unproved on record by the prosecution and the facts have come on record to the contrary. Who had purchased the stamp papers on which divorce with PW-30 Dara Singh is recorded is an unverified fact. No SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 39 of 50 ticket in the name of deceased from India to Canada is produced absence of which cast needle on Dara Singh/PW-30.
33.6 The above fact shows that the allegations made in the suicide note are not proved by the prosecution on record by any substantive evidence. No instance of cruelty is proved on record by the accused against the deceased. The deceased was able to make her decisions independently as she was going to Canada and the accused was not going with her despite of the claim by the deceased that she married to the accused. There is no evidence from the prosecution that where was the accused between 17.08.2007 to 19.08.2007. It is settled law that the alleged abetment of suicide must have direct proof or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. Merely allegation of harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused cannot be termed as abetment under Section 306 IPC. In the present case there is absence of any evidence on the part of prosecution that any action of the accused was proximate to the time of occurrence to the alleged act of suicide by the deceased. There is nothing on record to suggest that the marriage of deceased had been dissolved with PW-30 in a legal way. To instigate or aid there must be pre-mens rea to commit the offence under Section 306 IPC. Hence the suicide note and allegations therein are remained unproved on record. The suicide note must not only stand the test of truthfulness of what statement it contains but also it must stand the test such that the ingredients come within definition of Section 306 IPC r/w Section 107 IPC. Whatever dissatisfaction is expressed in the suicide note has also remained unproved on record. Evidence has come on record to the contrary. Hence it is held that prosecution has failed to SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 40 of 50 prove the ingredients of abetment by the accused in the alleged suicide of the deceased. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. There is no such evidence on record capable of suggesting that the accused had intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The state of mind to commit the crime is completely absent.
33.7 It is stated by the deceased in the suicide note that accused was telling a lie to the deceased that because of the deceased the family of the accused has disowned the accused due to which accused may commit suicide. The accused had asked the deceased that either she must commit suicide or the accused must commit suicide. There is no narration of date, month and year of the above threat caused by the accused to the victim. It is settled law that the threat must be near and immediate. In the present case when the deceased has proceeded from the house of PW-30 Dara Singh and reached the house of her father on 17.08.2007 then it is clear that the cloud of threat were not looming large on the head of the deceased. In fact she was coming to Delhi to go to Canada. Even PW-30 had also reached with the deceased to the house of PW-1. In such view of the matter first of all the threat is not proved specifically by the prosecution and secondly the threat is not found immediate and imminent to attract provision of Section 306 IPC r/w Section 107 IPC. Hence the accused is acquitted of the above offence.
34. The accused was declared proclaimed offender in the present case vide order dated 29.06.2012 passed by ld. MM and charge was given to SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 41 of 50 him under Section 174A IPC on 07.02.2024. PW-27 has deposed that on 06.06.2011 the investigation of case file was marked to him. The accused Harpreet Singh did not join investigation despite service of notice and thereafter NBW process were obtained against him. Accused did not appear to join the proceedings on which process under Section 82 Cr. P.C was taken against the accused and he was declared proclaimed offender. It is suggested by ld. Counsel for the accused to PW-27 that the accused was wrongly declared proclaimed offender. The accused was available at the given address. However the PW-27 in the entire proceeding has not exhibited the process taken by him for getting declared the accused as proclaimed offender. The process under Section 82 Cr. P.C is Ex.CX-1 recorded admitted under Section 299 Cr. P.C vide separate statement of the accused dated 16.09.2019. Accused did not dispute the said process. The order proceeding of ld. MM dated 17.05.2012 which are similarly admitted as Ex.CX-3 and order proceedings dated 29.06.2012 passed by ld. MM which are Ex.CX-4 on record. The publication was directed to be issued while issuing proclamation under Section 82 Cr. P.C. However the prosecution has failed to prove original of self publication on record and therefore it cannot be said that the publication was effected against the accused as directed keeping in view citation titled Dr. Shahnawaj vs. State and Ors. in Crl. MC No. 791/2014 dated 22.05.2014 from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at relevant para no. 7 to 14.
35. However before proceeding into the charge and evidence it is required to look into the fact that whether the complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C was moved against the accused at any time. In the present case the offence involved is Section 306 r/w Section 107 IPC which SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 42 of 50 involves first part of Section 174A IPC and not the second part of it. In absence of such complaint the charge followed by evidence could not be sustained against the accused. In case titled Pardeep Kumar vs. State of Punjab & Anr. in CRM-M-41656-2023 (O&M) dated 23.08.2023 from Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh has laid down that cognizance under Section 174A IPC cannot be taken in absence of complaint under Section 195 Cr. P.C. The said complaint has to be instituted in a competent jurisdictional Court. It was held that merely the offence is cognizable then it does not exclude applicability of Section 195 Cr. P.C. The reference was also made to Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta Bill 2023 vide which the corresponding Section 207 which is corresponding to Section 174A IPC and it is out of purview of Section 215 of the Bill, 2023. The omission is deliberate and it has to be seen a recognition of right of accused and it should not be seen for the benefit of the prosecution. The relevant para are reproduced hereasunder:
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M-41656- 2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.08.2023 in case titled Pardeep Kumar versus State of Punjab and another has laid down as under:
12.3. Clause(d) of Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines "com-plaint" as any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his tak-ing action under this Code,that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
12.4.Pertinently, vide explanation provided below Clause (d) ibid a report by a police officer shall be deemed to be a complaint in a case, which discloses the commis-sion of a non-cognizable offence. But it must be preceded with an investigation. The po-lice officer by whom such report is made, shall be deemed to be the complainant. Ac-cording to the First Schedule of the Code, the offence under Section 174-A of IPC is SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 43 of 50 cognizable. The aforesaid explanation is, thus,not applicable to the case in hand.
12.5. From the plain language of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is obvious that offence under Section 174-A of IPC falls within its scope. Its cogni-zance cannot be taken by any Court except on the complaint in writing of the public ser-vant/Judge concerned or of some other public servant/Judge to whom he is administra-tively subordinate. This being the position, after declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person, if at all the learned Magistrate had desired and decided to proceed against the pe-titioner for an offence under Section 174-A of IPC, the prescribed course for him was to institute a complaint in writing in the competent jurisdictional Court. Instead of that, the learned trial Court adopted a short but wrong cut and just sent a copy of his orders to the local police for initiation of proceedingsunder Section 174-A against the petitioner (ob-viously by registration of an FIR).
12.8 The reasoning given in Maneesh Goomer's case(supra)is that Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been correspondingly amended so as to include Section 174-
A IPC,as the Legislature was conscious of the fact that the offence (under Section 174-A IPC) is cog-nizable. It may be noted here that Section 188 of IPC is also in Chapter X of IPC and is a cognizable offence. And yet, it was and is still specifically covered by the provisions of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the logic of Maneesh Goomer's case (supra), in my opinion,Section 174-A IPC cannot be held excluded from the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C. merely because it is cognizable.
12.9 Having given my thought further on the reasoning given in Maneesh-Goomer's case (supra), with utmost respect, I have a different take on the same. Notably, introduction of Section 174-A into the IPC was accompanied by a corresponding amendment in Schedule 1 of the Cr.P.C. This amendment classified the aforementioned offence as cognizable. However, Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. was consciously not amended correspondingly to exclude Section 174-A from its ambit, as is now being proposed through Section 215 of 'The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 Bill'. Said Bill cur-rently under consideration of SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 44 of 50 the legislature.The omission of Section 174-A from the scope of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C cannot, therefore, be alsocharacterized as a mere oversight, especially in light of the deliberate amendment in Schedule-1, while Section 195 ibid was conspicuously left untouched.
12.11 From comparison of the text as aforesaid, it is borne out that Section 174-A IPC and corresponding Section207of 'The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Bill 2023'are though verbatim, but it is now proposed to take Section 207 ibid out of the pur- view of Section 215 of 'The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Bill, 2023' (corresponding to Sec-tion 195 of Cr.PC). Thus, in its current state, Section 195 of Cr.P.C., unequivocally en- compasses Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) within its legal framework. The earlier absence of corresponding amendment did perhaps give rise to a measure of bewil-derment. However, the said conspicuous absence of a corresponding modification to Sec-tion 195 Cr.P.C. has now drawn the attention of the legislature in the form of the cur-rently contemplated Bill.
12.12. Be that as it may, it is unmistakably evident that the omission of Section 174-Afrom the purview of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as a mere in ad-vertent oversight. It gets more particularly obvious, when viewed through the lens of the deliberate simultaneous legislative action taken to amend Schedule-1. This deliberate choice to eschew any alteration in Section 195 Cr.P.C. while making concurrent changes elsewhere in the same Code suggests a level of intentionality that cannot be readily dis-counted.
12.13. Having opined as above, I may also hasten to add here that non-inclusion of Section 174-A of IPC into the ambit of Section 195 of Cr.P.C in its current form, does though create some incongruity/legal inconsistency. To elucidate, let us consider an illus- trative scenario: Imagine an individual accused of an offense falling under Section 174-A of the IPC. Being an offense classified as cognizable, the police have the authority to ar-rest the accused without a warrant. However, Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. bars any Court from taking its cognizance except on the complaint in writing made by the Court/Public servant concerned.
SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 45 of 50This creates an anomalous situation where an individual who is ac-cused under Section 174-A IPC could potentially be arrested without a warrant, yet the legal requirement for his prosecution for such an offense is by way of filing a complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
12.15. Nevertheless, even if we were to entertain the notion that non-exclusion of-Section 174-A of IPC from the purview of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was by an inadvertent oversight/omission in the legislation, it is crucial to recognize that any benefit arising from such an inadvertence or oversight would accrue to the advantage of the accused, rather than the prosecution. In the realm of criminal jurisprudence, matters pertaining to personal liberty hold a paramount position. Such matters pertaining to personal liberty should never be predicated upon inferences drawn against the accused from presumed in-tentions and/or inadvertent omissions on the part of the legislature. The sanctity of per-sonal liberty demands nothing less than clear and categorical legislative provisions ensur-ing that justice is not compromised by inferences drawn against the accused from legisla-tive ambiguity or oversights.
12.16. In conclusion, it is held that Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), in its present form, encompasses Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) within its purview.
36. In case titled Sumit and Anr. vs. State of U.P. (DB) in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 17560 of 2023 dated 08.01.2024 in Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:4023-DB it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad that Section 174A IPC is part of offences under Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr. P.C for which Court is barred for taking cognizance except upon a complaint by the Court. The relevant para are reproduced hereasunder:
In case titled Sumit and another Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 17560 of 2023 dated 08.01.2024 SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 46 of 50 in Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:4023-DB.
9. From perusal of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., it is clear that the offences for which there is prohibition on court to take cognizance are non-cognizable offences from Section 172 to 187 I.P.C. while Section 188 I.P.C.
is mentioned as cognizable offence under First Schedule of Cr.P.C. The definition of "cognizable offences" is provided u/s 2(c) Cr.P.C. which is being quoted as under:
"2(c). "cognizable offence" means an offence for which, and "cognizable case" means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant."
10. Therefore, it is clear that in cognizable offences, police can arrest the accused without warrant. It is also clear from perusal of Section 195 Cr.P.C. that offences, punishable u/s 172 to 188 I.P.C. are cognizable by the court only when a complaint in writing is filed by public servant concerned or his subordinate. As per Section 21 I.P.C., "public servant" includes every judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge any adjudicatory function. Therefore, the Magistrate who issues proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. will be deemed to be public servant within the meaning of Section 195 Cr.P.C. The word "complaint" referred in Section 195 Cr.P.C. is defined u/s 2(d) Cr.P.C. which is being quoted below:
"2(d). " complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint; and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant."
11. From perusal of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., it is clear that though the complaint does not include police report but SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 47 of 50 the explanation of Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. also provides that if after investigation of a case a police report is submitted by the police officer, regarding non-
cognizable offence then same shall also be deemed to be "complaint". Therefore, apart from making allegation to Magistrate for taking action against a person who has committed an offence but also the police report/charge sheet of non-cognizable offence will also be deemed to be "complaint". From this fact, it is clear that police report of cognizable offence cannot be treated as a complaint by any stretch of imagination.
13. After insertion of Section 174-A in I.P.C. as well as in First Schedule of Cr.P.C., further amendment was also made in the year 2006 in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., but no amendment was made in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Therefore, at the time of inserting Section 174- A in I.P.C. as well as in First Schedule of Cr.P.C. after Section 174, legislature was well aware about the category of offences u/s 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. and for this reason, while making amendment in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in 2006, Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. was kept untouched knowingly by the legislature. The above position clearly reveals that while inserting Section 174-A I.P.C.,legislature was well aware that in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., apart from Section 188 I.P.C., one more cognizable offence i.e. 174-A I.P.C. is being inserted for providing the bar of cognizance on the part of court for offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., except on the complaint.
16. Though in cognizable offences police can arrest an accused without warrant but specific exception has been carved out by inserting Section 174- A I.P.C. in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., despite being a cognizable offence.
19. From perusal of aforesaid observations of Single Benches of Allahabad High Court as well as Delhi High Court, it is clear that the very basis of interpretation that Section 174-A I.P.C. being cognizable offence cannot be read as a section to be included in the category of cases mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. is itself incorrect and does not lay down correct law. So far as the judgement of Apex Court in Jayant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) as well as Pradeep S. Wodeyar (supra) are concerned, in both the judgements SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 48 of 50 controversy was entirely different and the Hon'ble Apex Court did not hold that Section 174-A I.P.C. is not part of Section 195(1)(a) (i) Cr.P.C.
22. It is clearly established that Section 174-A I.P.C. was inserted by way of amendment in 2005 between Sections 172 to 188, therefore, it is clear that Section 174-A I.P.C. is part of the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. for which court is barred from taking cognizance except upon a complaint by the court.
23. It is also relevant to mention here that cognizable offence itself permits the police to arrest a person without warrant, therefore, registration of F.I.R. of cognizable offence itself will affect the personal liberty of a person protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if legislature had intended to invoke the provision of cognizable offence only on the basis of filing written complaint then permitting to register F.I.R. for direct offence will definitely amount to interfere/deprive the personal liberty of a person. Therefore, once Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C prohibits the taking cognizance of the offence u/s 174-A I.P.C., except on the basis of written complaint, then permitting lodging of an F.I.R. u/s 174-A I.P.C. will amount to travesty of justice to the person concerned as the personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be deprived, except in accordance with law.
37. In view of the above it is found that there is no complaint against the accused under Section 195 Cr. P.C. and in absence of which it cannot be said that the charge against the accused can be sustained under Section 174A IPC. Since the basis of the charge goes therefore no conviction can be made against the accused under Section 174A IPC. In view of which the accused is held entitled to acquittal under Section 174A IPC.
38. In view of the discussion held above it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has committed offence under Section SC No. 28597/2016 FIR No. 19/2008 State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 49 of 50 306/174A IPC. Both the State case and the Complaint case fails. Hence accused Harpreet Singh is acquitted of the offence charged against him and it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused. Accordingly, accused Harpreet Singh stands acquitted. His earlier personal bond is cancelled and surety is discharged and documents, if any, be returned to the surety and endorsement on security documents is allowed to be de-endorsed as per rules. In terms of Section 437A Cr. PC, accused has furnished his bail bond as directed which will be in force for period of six months from the date of this judgment. Case property be confiscated to the State.
Both the files of State case and Complaint case be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court JOGINDER Digitally
JOGINDER
signed by
on 03.06.2024. PRAKASH PRAKASH NAHAR
Date: 2024.06.03
NAHAR 16:17:31 +0530
(JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01)
CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURT
DELHI
SC No. 28597/2016
FIR No. 19/2008
State Vs. Harpreet Singh Page 50 of 50