Himachal Pradesh High Court
Radhey Shyam Garg & Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 November, 2022
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2009 Date of Decision: 17.11.2022 .
_______________________________________________________ Radhey Shyam Garg & others .......Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ... Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1Yes.
For the Appellants:
r to Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate for appellant Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. N.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranav Sharma, Advocate for appellant No.3 and 4.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar and Mr. Narinder Guleria, Additional Advocate Generals with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, Assistant Advocate General.
_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Instant appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2009 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.1-S/7 of 2009, whereby learned court while holding appellant Nos. 1 to 4(hereinafter referred to as the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 2
'accused') guilty of their having committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs.
.
25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of six month.
2. For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for proper adjudication the case at hand are that on the basis of statement made by complainant Smt. Neeru Shamra (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C, wherein she alleged that her deceased son Gaurav Rattan committed suicide after being harassed and mentally tortured by the appellants-accused, police lodged the FIR Ex.PW7/C against the appellants-accused. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 8.05.2008, appellant-accused No.2, Rishav Garg stopped his bike in front of the shop of one Hem Raj in Dharampur Bazar, at about 7.45 PM. Deceased, who was son of Hem Raj wanted to close his shop and with a view to take his scooter inside, asked appellant-accused No.2, Rishav Garg to remove his bike. Since appellant-accused No.2 refused to remove the bike, some altercation took place interse deceased Gaurav Rattan and appellant-accused No.2. Accused No.2 made telephonic call to his uncle, Ved Garg accused No.4, who accompanied by 4-5 persons reached on the spot in a vehicle and they all were allegedly carrying ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 3 with them rods etc. People gathered on the spot tried to pacify them.
However, appellant-accused No.4, Ved Garg extended threats to deceased Gaurav Rattan. Other shop keepers in the nearby vicinity .
persuaded both the parties to arrive at a compromise and thereafter both the parties left the place. However, next morning at 7.30 AM, accused No.4, Ved Garg came near the shop of deceased and asked him to come out, but since mother of the deceased (PW-1) did not permit deceased to come out and took him to first floor, accused No.4 while extending threats that he will not spare the deceased left the spot. During day time deceased lodged a complaint at police Station accompanied by his two friends where accused persons were already present. Both the parties arrived at a compromise before the police.
However, on 12.5.2008, accused No.2, Rishav Garg again came to the shop of Hem Raj, father of the deceased and extended threats that he will not spare the deceased and would spend money for that purpose. Again on 15th May 2008, both the parties were called by the Superintendent of Police, Solan, where allegedly deceased was scolded/reprimanded by police official as well as accused present in the police Station. Deceased Gaurav Rattan was not satisfied with the conduct of the police and he was also afraid of the accused as they had extended threats to him. Such fact was revealed by him to his sister, who was working at Shimla. As per prosecution story, ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 4 deceased used to tell his sister that every day when he visited the bazaar one or the other accused raises threats to him, thereby he used to remain tense. On 24th May 2008, deceased returned home at .
10.30 PM and he after having finished his meal gave telephonic call to his sister at Shimla allegedly telling therein her sister that it would be his last talk with her as he was fed up with life. Sister of deceased Kumari Madhuri (PW-2) gave telephonic information to her mother (PW-1), who accompanied by her husband, went to the room of deceased, but found the same bolted from inside. Complainant (PW-
1) called Uncle of the deceased and tried to get the door opened by calling the deceased. However there being no response, the door was broken and deceased was found hanging from the ceiling fan with the bed sheet. Though, deceased was shifted to private Clinic at Dharampur, but he was declared brought dead. Police after having reached on the spot took the body for postmortem and recorded the statement of mother of the deceased Ex.P-1, on the basis of which, subsequently FIR Ex.PW7/C came to be lodged containing therein allegations, as detailed hereinabove. After having conducted the investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law against all the appellants-accused.
3. Learned trial Court being satisfied that a prima-facie case exists against the appellants-accused, framed charges against them ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 5 for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as .
many as 14 witnesses, whereas despite sufficient opportunities, no witness ever came to be examined at the behest of the appellants-
accused. However, in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. though they admitted factum with regard to altercation interse deceased and them on 8.5.2008, but denied connection, if any, of aforesaid altercation with the subsequent act of suicide committed by the deceased.
5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence collected on record by the prosecution, held all the appellants-accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as per description given hereinabove.
6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Court below, appellants-accused have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for their acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Court below.
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 67. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.
8. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties .
and perused the evidence available on record, be it ocular and documentary vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned judgment of conviction by court below while holding appellants-accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, this Court finds sufficient force in the submission of Mr. N.S.Chandel, learned Senior counsel representing the appellants-
accused duly assisted by Ms. Sheetal Vyas, Advocate that though all the prosecution witnesses stated something specific with regard to altercation interse deceased and accused on 8.5.2008 and thereafter extension of threats to the deceased, but there is no evidence suggestive of the fact that there was any kind of abatement/instigation, if any, on the part of the appellants-accused to drive accused to commit suicide. While making this Court to peruse provisions under Sections 305 and 306 of IPC, learned Senior counsel representing the appellants-accused argued that to prove the guilt, if any, under the aforesaid provisions of law, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that suicide was committed after being abetted by the accused and it is also required to prove that person sought to be charged with offence punishable under Section 306 IPC ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 7 abated the commission of such suicide. While making this Court to peruse evidence led on record by the prosecution, especially statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-8, learned counsel for the .
appellants-accused contended that though these witnesses while making their depositions before the court below gave narration of incident allegedly happened on 8th May, 2008 in front of the shop of father of the deceased and thereafter at police Station on 15th May, 2008, but none of these witnesses ever stated that appellants-
accused gave beatings or extended threats to do away with the life of the deceased. He further submitted that otherwise also altercation interse deceased and appellants-accused took place on 8th May, 2008, whereas suicide was committed by the deceased on 24th May, 2008 and as such, there is no proximity between alleged incident of extending threats and act of suicide committed by the deceased after being harassed and tortured by the accused.
9. In support of his aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the appellants-accused invited attention of this Court to the various judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court , which shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
10. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by court below, contended that there is no ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 8 illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by Court below because same is based upon the proper appreciation of facts as well as evidence led on .
record by the prosecution. While refuting aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants-accused, learned Additional Advocate General argued that bare reading of statements made by all the material prosecution witnesses, clearly prove that after 8th May, 2008 i.e. when for the first time altercation took place interse deceased, all the appellants-accused had been extending threats to the deceased, as a consequence of which, he was under great tension, as has been stated by her sister PW-2. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that since it stands duly established on record that deceased was under constant threat and he was being continuously harassed by the appellants-accused, learned Court below rightly held all the appellants-accused guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
11. Record reveals that dispute interse deceased and appellant-accused No.2 started on 8th May 2008, when allegedly appellant-accused No.2 refused to remove his bike, enabling deceased to park his scooter inside the shop. But if evidence led on record is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that on 8th May 2008, there was only verbal altercation interse deceased as well as ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 9 appellant-accused No.2 and appellant-accused No.4, who allegedly after being called by appellant-accused No.2 reached on the spot alongwith some persons. Since shop keepers in the nearby vicinity .
made parties to settle their dispute amicably,both the parties compromised and left towards their own houses. As per prosecution story, again on 9th May, 2008 appellant-accused No.4, Ved Garg came nearby the shop of the deceased but mother of deceased did not let her son Gaurav Rattan come out and as such, appellant-
accused No.4 left the spot but while leaving he allegedly extended threats. On 15th May 2008, parties were called in the police Station on the basis of complaint lodged by the deceased. However, as per version of prosecution witnesses, police officials snubbed complainant i.e. deceased and accused present there also extended threats but such fact, if any, has been not stated by the police officials while deposing before the Court below. After 16 days of first incident of altercation and 9 days of lodging of complaint deceased committed suicide. Though, prosecution has attempted to make out a case that deceased committed suicide after being harassed and mentally tortured by the appellants-accused, but there is no such evidence. All the material prosecution witnesses while making deposition, verbatim narrated facts as contained in the FIR but none of them stated that after alleged incident deceased was being stalked and threatened by ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 10 accused, rather matter had come to the knowledge of the police, who had summoned both the parties to the police Station. On 9th/15th May 2008, parties after having compromised the matter with each other in .
the presence of the police, had settled the matter. Though, prosecution witnesses have stated that after alleged incident deceased used to remain tense, but that may not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the appellants-accused under Section 306 of IPC.
12. No doubt, PW-2, Smt. Madhuri, sister of the deceased deposed that before alleged incident of suicide his brother had telephonically called her to tell that it may be his last talk with her, but she nowhere stated that at that time her brother told her that he is fed up with constant threats, if any, extended by the appellants-accused and he intends to finish his life on account of constant mental harassment and torture caused by the appellants-accused, rather she stated that her brother used to tell her that he is disturbed on account of constant threats being extended to him by the accused. However, having taken note of the fact that incident of altercation interse deceased and appellants-accused had taken place 15 days prior to the incident of suicide, this Court finds it difficult to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that incident/altercation took place interse deceased and appellants-accused on 8th May, 2008 has ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 11 closed proximity with the commission of suicide by deceased. No doubt, matter was reported with regard to extension of threats by the appellants-accused to the police, but on 9th May, 2008 both the .
parties had entered into compromise with each other in the presence of police and thereafter no report/complaint ever came to be lodged with the police with regard to extension of threats, if any, by the appellants-accused to the deceased.
13. Rajinder Singh (PW-6) one of the neighbourer of the deceased deposed that after compromise both the parties were happy and they shook hand with each other and returned to their respective houses.
14. Since, it is not in dispute that all the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 have only stated with regard to altercation on 8th May, 2008 and thereafter extension of threats on the next day and there is no specific mention, if any, with regard to constant harassment and torture, if any, by the appellants-accused, this Court finds no necessity to discuss the entire statements of these witnesses in detail. Otherwise also, learned Additional Advocate General after having perused the statements of aforesaid witnesses have not been able to dispute that none of these witnesses have stated something specific with regard to abetment.
and instigation, if any, on the part of the appellants-accused. Though, ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 12 learned Additional Advocate General attempted to argue that very act of extension of threats amounts to abatement/instigation, but this Court finds no reason to agree with aforesaid submission of him .
because alleged incident of altercation had actually took place interse parties on 8th May 2008, whereas deceased committed suicide on 24th May, 2008 and in between both the parties had compromised with each other. Moreover, after having arrived at compromise no complaint, if any, ever came to be lodged with the police at the behest of the deceased with regard to extension of threats, if any, by the appellants-accused. Otherwise also, there is no material available on record with regard to old animosity, if any, interse appellants-accused and deceased, rather dispute interse them arose on very trivial issue with regard to parking of vehicle in front of shop of father of the deceased.
15. At this juncture, it would be apt to take note of statement of Hem Raj (PW-5) father of the deceased and PW-8, Rajat Ratti friend of the deceased that on 24th May, 2008 deceased was calm and cool and during that day he visited shop and thereafter went to the bazaar and watched mach with Rajat on television. Most importantly, PW-8, Rajat while deposing categorically stated that on 24th May, 2008 deceased remained with him with effect from7.00 PM to 9.30 PM and during this period nothing was disclosed to him. It has ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 13 come in the statement of PW-5, Hem Raj that his deceased son wanted to go with PW-8, Rajat to Solan but they did not permit him, which fact has been further corroborated by PW-8 in his statement .
that deceased wanted to go to Solan.
16. Though, PW-2, Kumari Madhuri, sister of the deceased claimed that she was being telephonically informed by deceased with regard to his being tense on account of constant threats extended by appellants-accused but no call details report, if any, qua the telephonic conversion of PW-2 with deceased ever came to be placed on record. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness reveals that specific suggestion came to be put to this witness whether she handed over her mobile phone to police to which, she answered no, meaning thereby her version that she received telephonic information with regard to extension of threats by appellants-accused to the deceased is not corroborated by any evidence.
17. Having scanned the entire evidence be it ocular or documentary on record, this Court finds that precisely the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was under constant threat from the appellants-accused and as such, he was compelled to take drastic step of committing suicide, but that may not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, of the appellants-accused .To prove allegations under Section 306 IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 14 abatement/instigation, if any, at the hands of the accused, named in the FIR, which is totally missing in the case at hand.
18. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of provision .
contained under Section 306 of IPC, which reads as under:-
"Section 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."
Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC, which reads as under:-
"Abetment of a thing.--A person abets the doing of a thing, who--
(First) -- Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly)--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly)-- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.--A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. 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."
19. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC, which reads as under :-
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 151. "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 facilitates the commission there of, is said to aid the doing of that r act."
20. Similarly, the dictionary meaning of the word instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 2001 9 SCC 618 has defined the word 'instigate' as instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act."
21. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.S.Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 190 has dealt with scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co-relation with Section 306 IPC.
Relevant pars of the aforesaid judgment read 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 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 16 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."
.
22. In the case of M. Arjunan Vs. State, Represented by its Inspector of Police (2019) 3 SCC 315, the Hon'lbe Apex Court has held 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."
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 2019 17 SCC 301, has held that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of 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 ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 17 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.
24. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case (Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Anr, 2021 (4) RCR (Criminal)
361) where student committed suicide after being reprimanded by the teacher/administration, categorically held that reprimanding student would not amount to instigation to commit suicide. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:
27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school.
The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered opinion, would not tantamount to provoking a student to commit suicide, unless there are repeated specific allegations of harassment and insult deliberately without any justifiable cause or reason. A simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentionally aid to the commission of a suicide by a student.
28. 'Spare the rod and spoil the child' an old saying may have lost its relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is not recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student. It is not only a moral duty of a teacher but one of the legally ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 18 assigned duty under Section 24 (e) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 to hold regular meetings with the parents and guardians and apprise them about the regularity in attendance, ability to learn, progress made in learning and any other act or .
relevant information about the child.
............................
32. Considering the facts that the appellant holds a post of a teacher and any act done in discharge of his moral or legal duty without their being any circumstances to even remotely indicate that there was any intention on his part to abet the commission of suicide by one of his own pupil, no mens reacan be attributed. Thus, the very element of abetment is conspicuously missing from the allegations levelled in the FIR. In the absence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under section 306 IPC do not exist .........................................
40. In the absence of any material on record even, prima-
facie, in the FIR or statement of the complainant, pointing out any such circumstances showing any such act or intention that he intended to bring about the suicide of his student, it would be absurd to even think that the appellant had any intention to place the deceased in such circumstances that there was no option available to him except to commit suicide.
25. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that simple act of reprimand of a student for his behaviour or indiscipline by a teacher, who is under moral obligations to inculcate the good qualities of a human being in a student would definitely not amount to instigation or intentional aid to the commission of a suicide by a student. In the absence of the element of abetment missing from the allegations, the essential ingredients of offence under Section 306 IPC do not exist. Apart from above, the ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 19 Hon'ble apex Court has held that victim committed suicide allegedly for being reprimanded for repeatedly bunking classes. Reading of victim's suicide note shows that same was penned by immature and .
hypersensitive mind, thus act of accused being teacher would not ordinarily induce a circumstances to a student to commit suicide.
26. Aforesaid exposition of law taken into consideration clearly reveals that mere allegation of harassment of deceased by the accused named in the FIR may not be sufficient to conclude guilt, if any, under Section 306 IPC, rather to bring the accused in the ambit of 306 IPC, it is required to be established on record that deceased Gaurav Rattan committed suicide after being instigated and abated by the accused, which in the case at hand is totally missing.
27. Recently, Hon'ble Apex Court in case tilted Mariano Anto Bruno and another versus The inspector of Police, reported in 2022 Live Law(SC)834, held that not only there has to be evidence of continuous harassment, but there should be cogent evidence to establish a positive action by the accused which should more or less be proximate to the time of occurrence, which action can be said to have led or compelled the person to commit suicide. It would be profitable to reproduce para No.34 of aforesaid judgment herein:-
"34. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the High Court erred in recording the finding that there is sufficient evidence for convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC losing sight of the fact that there exists no ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 20 evidence on record indicating that the deceased was meted out with harassment by the appellants just before her death. It is well- settled that not only there has to be evidence of continuous harassment, but there should be .
cogent evidence to establish a positive."
28. In the case at hand, alleged incident of altercation, which ultimately led to deceased to commit suicide had happened on 8th May 2008, whereas suicide was committed by deceased on 24th May, 2008 and most importantly before committing suicide, parties had already entered into the compromise, thereby agreeing to live happily and peacefully in future. Moreover, this Court finds that there is no evidence suggestive of the fact that deceased was meted out with harassment by the appellants-accused just before his death, which in the given facts and circumstances was otherwise required to prove guilt, if any, of appellants-accused punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
29. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that learned trial Court below has not appreciated the evidence in its right prospective as well as law on the point, as a consequence of which, findings contrary to the records as well as to the detriment of the appellants-accused have come to fore and as such, same are not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2009 and order of sentence ::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS 21 dated 27.06.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.1-S/7 of 2009, are quashed and set-aside and the appellants-accused are .
discharged of the charges framed against them under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the appellants-accused are ordered to be discharged. Interim order, if any, is vacated. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
17th November, 2022
(shankar) r
::: Downloaded on - 22/11/2022 20:31:13 :::CIS