Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Roopali Rajput And Another vs State Of Haryana And Another on 25 November, 2008

Author: Ranjit Singh

Bench: Ranjit Singh

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006                                  :{ 1 }:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                    DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 25, 2008

             Roopali Rajput and another

                                                             .....Petitioners

                                         VERSUS

             State of Haryana and another

                                                              ....Respondents



CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?



PRESENT:             Petitioner No.2 in person.

                     Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
                    for respondent No.1.

                    None for respondent No.2.

                                  ****

RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)

Roopali Rajput and her father, Lt.Col. Kehar Chand Rana, are the two petitioners before the Court who have impugned the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, framing charge against both of them for an offence under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner No.1, Roopali Rajput, is an unfortunate girl who has lost her husband. Vijay Rajput, her husband, committed suicide for the abetment of which both the petitioners are being accused and have been so charge-sheeted. They have filed this petition, saying CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006 :{ 2 }:

that no offence or allegation is made out either from the FIR or otherwise, which would show any instigation or abetment on their part to make them liable for an offence under Section 306 IPC.

The facts, in brief, are that petitioner No.1, Roopali Rajput, married Vijay Rajput on 10.12.2001 at Faridabad. Out of this wedlock, a daughter, named, Risha, was born on 8.2.2003. The couple appears to be enjoying cordial relationship. In first week of April, 2003, petitioner No.1 had gone to her parental house at Itarsi, after the delivery of the child as her father, petitioner No.2, was serving at Itarsi at that time. It is here that she received a phone call revealing a shocking news that her husband, Vijay Rajput, has suffered a heart attack and that he was no more. Both the petitioners alongwith their relatives reached at Faridabad on the morning of 31.5.2003 but found that deceased had already been cremated hastily. The action of the parents of the deceased to do this cremation in this manner, without waiting for petitioner No.1, who was his wife, obviously gave rise to a suspicion in the mind of the petitioners. Petitioner No.2 thereafter filed a written application dated 31.5.2003 to Police Incharge, Phathrota, District Hoshangabad (MP) for registration of a case and investigation of the cause of death of Vijay Rajput. This application was forwarded to police at Faridabad since the death had occurred at Faridabad. When the police at Faridabad did not take any action, petitioner No.1 wrote a letter to Superintendent of Police and Inspector General of Police, Haryana, for necessary action.

           In   the     meanwhile,   the   mother    of   the   deceased
 CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006                         :{ 3 }:

(respondent No.2) filed an application in the month of July 2003, claiming all the insurance money due on account of death of Vijay Rajput. It is claimed that in this application, she clearly mentioned that Vijay Rajput died a natural death. Petitioner No.1, being wife, obviously filed a suit for restraining respondent No.2 to raise a claim qua the estate of her husband. Court granted injunction in her favour on 22.9.2003. It is pointed out that initially, the death of Vijay Rajput was stated to be natural due to heart attack but subsequently respondent No.2 started making out the death to be under mysterious circumstances. As per the petitioners, after 10 months, the death is given a shape of suicide in a statement made by respondent No.2 and recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is now made out that Vijay Rajput was found hanging from a ceiling fan in his room and was brought down by Sushma Rajput, respondent No.2, mother of the deceased and Ritu, sister of the deceased. Thus, this death is now stated to be a case of suicide. Petitioners allege that this change is just to blame the petitioners for abetment of suicide. Reference is also made to documents to show that it was a case of natural death as made out by the family of the deceased but has now been given a shape of suicide to make an allegation under Section 306 IPC against both the petitioners.

Allegation as made by Smt.Sushma Rajput on the basis of which this FIR is registered against the petitioners and which are made on 5.12.2003 is that her son, Vijay Rajput was married to Roopali Rajput, petitioner No.1 on 10.12.2001. Initially Roopali CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006 :{ 4 }:

Rajput was statedly living with Vijay Rajput peacefully but after sometime, the wife and her father (petitioner No.2) started mentally torturing Vijay Rajput. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 wanted to live at Itarsi and she and her father used to force late Vijay Rajput to accompany them to Itarsi. Petitioner No.1 did not want to live at Faridabad and was planning to leave the place. As per the allegation, both the petitioners hatched a conspiracy to do away with the life of Vijay Rajput, deceased, and petitioner No.2 accompanied by her daughter-in-law, named, Doli, came to Faridabad on 6.4.2003 and took Roopali Rajput on the pretext that her mother was ill. This is stated to be a planned move and aimed at harassing Vijay Rajput as petitioner No.1 very well knew that he could not live without his daughter, named, Risha, as he was affectionately attached to her in an extra ordinary way. Petitioner No.1 statedly took all the ornaments, clothes etc. The deceased thereafter did not visit Itarsi as he was threatened of dire consequences by both the petitioners. It is stated that on 26.5.2003, petitioner No.2 came to Faridabad and called deceased Vijay Rajput at the house of sister located in Sector 21-B, Faridabad and had exerted pressure on him. Thereafter, it is alleged that Vijay Rajput was seen in pensive mood and could not regain his normal working. He was so up-set that he stopped taking his meal and remained mentally up-set whenever he received a call from his wife. It is claimed that when the pressure became unbearable, Vijay Rajput allegedly ended his wife on the night intervening 29/30.5.2003. It is on this basis, the present FIR was lodged against the petitioners.

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006 :{ 5 }:

After investigation, a charge has been framed against both the petitioners. While framing a charge, the Court has observed that defence of the accused can not be looked into. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners were also considered and were found not helpful. Accordingly it is observed that prima-facie case is made out against both the petitioners for offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC and the charge is accordingly framed.

Learned State counsel would support the action of the Additional Sessions Judge to frame the charge. He would draw my attention to the suicide note to the effect that deceased Vijay Rajput was an emotional person and was rather pressurized by petitioner No.2 by summoning him to his sister's house at Faridabad. He accordingly contends that suicide committed by deceased, Vijay Rajput, as such, is clearly relatable to that pressure exerted on him, which, according to the counsel, would reveal an offence under Section 306 IPC.

From the facts of the case, which are not much in dispute, it is to be seen if the allegations as made in the complaint and the FIR, would lead to an offence of abetment to suicide against the petitioners or not. Word `abetment' is defined under Section 107 IPC, which means that a person abets the doing of a thing if he 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, and in order to the doing of that thing or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing is guilty of an abetment.

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006 :{ 6 }:

Petitioner No.2, who appearing in person, would contend that by no stretch of imagination, the allegations made in the complaint would lead to abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC. The allegation would neither reveal an instigation nor any engagement of the petitioners with other persons in any conspiracy for doing of a thing or an illegal omission, pursuant to which anything was done. It is also not a case where the petitioners are seen to have intentionally aided any act or illegal omission. The only allegation made against petitioner No.1 is that she left the company of her husband to stay with her father. Though petitioner No.1 would give entirely different version and the reasons for which she had gone to stay with her parents but even if the different story as given in the complaint made by respondent No.2 is believed, then also abetment is not made out.

The death has taken place on 30.5.2003. The allegation of suicide is first made on 5.12.2003 i.e. after a lapse of about seven months. Initially, the case was stated to be of a natural death. Apparently, some dispute took place between the parties in regard to the estate of deceased, Vijay Rajput. This appears to have led to allegations and counter allegations by both the sides. Petitioner No.2 has relied on number of judgments to say that from the facts as narrated, ingredients of abetment would not be made out. He would first refer to the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that word `instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea is the necessary CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006 :{ 7 }:

Reference is made to the case of Asha Shukla Vs. CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006 :{ 8 }:

State of U.P. And another, 2002 Cri.L.J. 2233. This was a case where suicide was by hanging and death note was found on the person of deceased son-in-law. It is seen that he was unhappy with his wife as he was forced by her to live separately from his parents. Finding that there is no evidence of instigation, it was held that prima- facie, no offence under Section 306 IPC was made out. Charge- sheet was held liable to be quashed. The facts in the case of Asha Shukla's case (supra) are somewhat similar to the present case. Here also the allegation of abetment is sought to be supported on the ground that wife had left the company of her husband and this led to cause of his depression and ultimately suicide as he was not able to live without his daughter. Otherwise, no evidence or allegation of abetment is noticed. In Vedparkash Bhaiji Vs. State of M.P., 1995 Cri.L.J. 893, the accused person was allegedly intimidating and goading the deceased for repayment of loan. It was held that this would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. Similarly, in the case of Alka Grewal Vs. State of M.P., 2000 Cri.L.J. 672, the immoral character of wife, leading husband to commit suicide was not considered sufficient to infer abetment of suicide on the part of wife. This was also a case where suicide note was recovered. As already noticed in Mahendra Singh's case (supra), mere allegation of harassment made by the deceased in her dying declaration was held not sufficient to constitute an offence of abetment to suicide.

Though, the petitioners have given their side of the story in regard to this incident but even if the version given by the complainant is accepted, it may not be possible to say that the CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1861 OF 2006 :{ 9 }:

petitioners had abetted Vijay Rajput to commit suicide. The evidence is totally lacking in this regard. The best case of the prosecution is that the wife had left the company of the husband in connivance with her father, knowing that that deceased was too attached to his daughter and would not be able to live without her. This would not satisfy the definition of abetment as given in Section 107 IPC. The plea that the deceased did not dare to go to Itarsi as he was threatened, appears to have been introduced to justify that part of the version that the deceased was too attached to his daughter as otherwise it can be said that he could have easily gone and met his daughter at Itarsi instead of committing suicide. Threat not to come, even if true, would not show that the petitioners had abetted the suicide by deceased Vijay Rajput. What all transpired between petitioner No.1 and the deceased, when he was allegedly called to the house of the sister at Faridabad, is something which would not be known to the complainant as she had not statedly accompanied the deceased. The precedent that has been cited and noticed above would clearly show that from the circumstances, as pointed out, the offence of abetment to suicide against the petitioners is not made out. Taking the entirety of the facts and the law into consideration, I am of the considered view that no case for abetment to suicide against the petitioners is made out. The order framing charge against the petitioners, as such, can not be sustained. The same is set- aside. The petition is allowed.

November 25 ,2008                        ( RANJIT SINGH )
khurmi                                         JUDGE