Delhi High Court
Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti vs State on 5 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: II(2000)DMC558
Author: R.S. Sodhi
Bench: R.S. Sodhi
ORDER
R.S. Sodhi, J.
p>1. Admit.
2. This Criminal Revision Petition No. 505 of 1997 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions dated 24.9.1997 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has framed charge against the petitioner under Sections 306/498-A read with Section 34 IPC. It is the case of the petitioner that upon material available on record and taken to be correct in all respects, it is not sufficient to support the charge of Sections 306 & 498-A IPC. It is on this backdrop that the petitioner has taken me through the record of the case. The only material available on record are two letters written by the deceased giving reasons as to why she has chosen to take this drastic step of ending her life. It would, there- fore, be appropriate to refers to the letters which are as follows:
"Unable to bear the load of intolerable hardship and humiliation. I am leaving this world. I had married with great hopes that in a joint family I would receive and give a lot of affection. I am a father-less and mother-less person, of inferior destiny. I had great hopes that I would conquer the hearts of my father-in-law and mother-in-law and win over their love. But alas. Has anyone ever been able to win over affection by force? In the last moments of my life. I wouldn't tell any lie, nor am I doing so, My mother-in-law's heart is made of stone. But I cannot say that for certain. She is extremely cunning. One who burns the home but presents a beguiling picture to the world'- the proverb was perhaps coined with her in mind. [Bengali proverb to describe a two-faced person who conceals domestic discord from the world]. People think that she is the very image of the goddess. No one could guess on seeing her warm-heartedness for others, that this was just for show, and that she was actually a scheming person [ Jilipir patch]. She was an extremely opportunistic. short tempered and prejudiced women. Where the money is, there her affec- tions lie. Alas! With the inhabitants of which world have I had to live! My husband [Swamy] has no money. Salaried people can never have excess money in order to run a household. I have had to throttle my desires long ago. I have spent a lot of time trying to make the family happy. I have had severe disagreements and conflicts with my husband. I had only one thing to say 'Your parents have brought you up under difficult circumstances. There- fore, after maintaining your family, it is your duty to give them whatever money is within your means. He could never do that. Even though I did not love them at all, for the sake of duty, I would often try to buy this or that for them on the sly. But one must also learn how to receive gifts. Till today my mother-in-law has not been able to receive my gifts with either a smile, or praise. I at least have not seen such a lady in my life. Ever since my marriage they have pestered me. But people believe that only a very fortunate woman can get such godlike parents-in-law. Secret- ly, I would laugh at this. Because as the proverb goes. 'She who has not been seen is beautiful, she who has not been tested is a wonderful cook'. Only one who stays with such a person and suf- fers in the process, can really tell what the person is like. Not once after marriage has she given me money and said, 'Here, spend it as you will' My husband was in Jaipur. The entire salary would go into their hands. If I said anything, both would say, "You have enough to eat, enough to wear. What do you need more money for? But now they have grown old. If I had been like them, I could have behaved in a similar fashion. But no, whenever I remembered my days of hardship, when I had faced inconvenience at every step, for lack of money, I tried to give them some money even after running my family. At times I have been successful, at times not.
But should the affection for the wives of the two sons be decided by the weight of money? The younger son who I loathed to intro- duce as my brother-in-law, took the goodwill generated by his father's business, sank it, and then started his own business. He had no difficulty in starting his own business as he had come to know several doctors through his father's professional contacts. He began to prosper gradually by using his father's name. He made a lot of money and bought two cars. My sister-in-law. whom I loved earlier, has now (why now, for a while now) stopped talking to me. I constantly told her, "Look your husband has never spoken properly to me, and the parents-in-law are difficult people. We, the two daughters-in-law, must try to love each other like two sisters. Quarrels take place in every house hold. But we'll always forget that and talk things over. If you dislike any behaviour of mine, you ask me straightaway. Don't go by what the others say. Only then will our affection remain intact. But alas, it was to no avail. For every little thing, the beauty's face would become sullen, there would be no conversation and if I said anything, she would carry tales to her husband and provoke him - pretend to be a simpleton and make him raise a storm. But because the younger son has money, and in fact to tell the truth, he has won over the parents by giving them money, therefore, the elder daughter-in-law was dirt in the mother-in-law's eye. And how could she see any fault in the younger son? She sided with her son and fought so much with me. Yes, my biggest fault was that I never provoked my husband to quarrel with his parents. When I had to fight. I did so on my own. Because in my opinion, the daugh- ter-in-law is someone else's daughter. Very few daughter-in-law have the good fortune to receive affection from their in-laws. But the son is the precious reward for the parents' struggles. If he takes up cudgels for his wife, and quarrels with his parents, such impertinence in my opinion is unpardonable. So despite frequent quarrels, I never say a word to my husband. He loves his mother, father, brother and his brother's wife. I have never wanted him to be pained for my sake. But my beautiful sister-in- law who I thought was such a nice girl, who knew that even she was so scheming. She has a lot in common with my mother-in-law. She has further poisoned my mother-in-law's mind about me, by carrying tales about me. And my mother-in-law has in turn ruined my relationship with my sister-in-law, again by carrying tales. How we don't even look at each other. My beautiful sister-in-law has criticized me everywhere, but all of it has come back to my ears. Thus ended my love for my sister-in-law. They have cleverly occupied the first floor of the house completely. And here I am on the ground floor, with my stony-hearted mother-in-law in the room adjacent to mine. No opportunity for conversation with my husband. She would eavesdrop, and then taunt at me later. What am I to do then? Who am I to talk to ? On many days, I haven't eaten, cried secretly, and fallen ill. But the heart of stone did not melt. Never did she stroke my head affectionately. But to tell the truth, though my father-in-law pestered me a lot after my marriage, he changed with age. When I was unwell, he would stroke my head even at midnight. I love no one in this house. Yet, if there is any affection at all, it is for my father-in- law.
It would be wrong to say that my wealthy brother-in-law has no sense of responsibility. He has a strong sense of responsibility towards his friends and their wives. At night, he would escort his friends' wives to their homes, despite difficulties. But if his own elder brother's wife needed to go out on urgent work at 9 or 10 p.m., she has to do so alone. Then they will shamelessly ignore it. He is there at the beck and call of his wife, a hen- pecked husband. One who can fight with his elder brother without ascertaining whether his wife is right or wrong, is it surprising that he would also quarrel with his eye-sore of a sister-in-law.
Only God knows why my sister-in-law is so proud. There is money. But will they give it to me, to reach for the sky? Their money is for them, and not to be spent on us. My sister-in-law has a very mean mind. But the world takes her to be a nice girl. There is always a smile on her face. Is she capable of quarrelling? Some people have two sides of to them. She is also like that. Ugly on the inside, but Lakshmi incarnate on the outside. There is only one side to me. When I am bad, I am bad inside out, and if I am good, then I am just so.
I have a blighted destiny. Despite beauty, I am bad and dark according to my mother-in-law. I have no money power. I am also not very fortunate in my children. My elder son is so bad in his studies that it is not worth talking about. His bad results have always made me cry. I don't know what the result of his Xth Boards will be this time. For whom will I live? I have also become very bad, after marrying into this family. I also often become mean and harbour mean thoughts at times. But I try to uplift myself from this mire by reading books on God. But how much longer will this carry on? God, I cannot bear it any longer. Grant me death. Human beings want to live, but I want to die. I pray to God that if there is a next birth, then I should be born as a servant to God. I do not wish to re-enter the hustle-bustle of this world.
I appeal to my husband to donate my body to AIIMS Hospital after my death. Any functional organ of my body should be used for the benefit of the poor and needy, but some parts should be consigned to the Ganges. I have no other desire.
Om, nama shivayah namah Namah, Chandikaye namah Namah, Ramayo, Krishnaye namah.
Today, 28 July, 1994, my brother-in-law (whose name I loathe to utter) and my sister-in-law advised my husband to have separate kitchens, meaning the two brothers with their wives, should live separately. Oh, how intolerable! They are doing something (to lead separate lives) which I never wanted. I could have tolerated it if it had come from my parents-in-law. But I cannot tolerate the son and the daughter-in-law's conspiracy. However bad I am, I have never harboured the desire to eat or live separately. Every- thing in this house is done according to the dictates of their Highnesses, my brother-in-law and sister-in-law, We are nobody. Unable to bear this extreme assault, I utter the words Haripada Sharanam, and die. I have no one. I have a sister. She will be very shocked but nothing can be done. After my death my two sons should not be tonsured. They should also not observe the mourning rituals. Their school is reopening on 5 July 1994, and both of them should be sent to school from that day. They should not be absent from school on any day. There should not be any disruption in their studies.
If my words are not honoured, then my spirit will haunt them. It requires a lot of courage to die. I had many desires but they remain unfulfilled because of my sister-in-law. brother-in-law and mother-in-law. I have to die. God, no one should be able to save me this time. Otherwise, there will be no end to my disgrace.
Each one will reap the fruits of his deeds. Today, after worshipping Ma Mangalachandi, I have prayed to her that alas, I have to be reborn, but I hope I do not have to enter family life. I should be born as your servant. I know that everyone will critisize me because my sister-in-law, together with my mother-in-law will say, "We have not done anything". This same sister-in-law, when she was friendly with me, used to criticise our parents-in- law in front of everyone. But now she pretends to love our mother-in-law very much.
Anyway, I'll take my leave.
Om Haripada Sahay."
3. The next letter is as follows:
"To whom whatsoever it may concern"
My mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law are responsi- ble for my death. Though, I hate to utter their names, for my misdeeds in my previous lives I have such sister-in-law, brother- in-law and mother-in-law. They are petty and sinful people, however, know that they are God like. I don't know why they have so much grudge against me. Yes, I admit that I am outspoken and do not mince my words before others which people cannot tolerate. They can accept insults at their back but cannot accept truth being told on their face. But I never indulge in back biting. This sister-in-law for whom I have done so much (which she may not acknowledge now) tends to shun once herself interest is served. Don't know what is she proud of. Is it her wealth or she thinks herself to be very beautiful. Even if she has money does she spend it on me or on my children. What is her pride? And why is her husband so haughty? Am I dependent on him? On the con- trary, during his bad days, I lent him over Rs. 1 lakh over a year ago. I have not got it back yet. In our penuary, there is no end to our misery. If we had got back that money, it would have helped us. But no, I know we will never get back the money. On top of this, the banalitiess of my brother-in-law. He has stopped talking to me. They stealthily bring good food to their floor, upstairs and eat among themselves. This kind of pettiness is only expected of this family, because his mother too, has the habit of hiding things.
Since I have been married into this family (Bangla proverb) (hellish conditions because of bad company) my nature has also become mean. I have become very wrathful and jealous. To overcome this I am trying to read good books in order to elevate my mind. But I am failing in this. And my husband is timid. He is very scared of his younger brother, mother, father, he is scared of every one. I suffer so much humiliations in this house and yet he keeps quiet. But if any body speaks ill of the younger "Bahu" the younger son will "deal with this person in this life and the next life" "Bengali proverb in this context means - he will take up cudgels on her behalf). There is nobody in this house to under- stand my sorrow. Why should I live. I know no one will grieve if I die. But I don't feel sorry because of that. I also know there will be no end to my two sons' misery after I am dead. Their uncle and aunt are "chandelles" (in Bengali usage means cruel hearted). And their grand mother is selfish, jealous, ill-tem- pered and cannot stand my two sons. This because she does not love me. As the saying goes, the person you don't like has crooked feet. Therefore, my children also have crooked feet. But no. Enough is enough. I cannot tolerate any more. I have no one in this world. Therefore, it is only right that I should go. That is why I am going. After I die, it is not necessary to cremate my body. I denote my body to the AIIMS. My organs which remain functional, may be donated to the poor. I do not wish to speak ill of any one at my hour of death. People reap the fruit of their labour. (He who will suffer for what he has done just as I have). My sarees, blouses or anything else that I possess may be donated to the poor.
"Sri Hari, Namah Shivaya Namah Om Namah Chandikayi Namah".
P.S. (This is written in a different ink).
Today, on June 28th, the persons whose names. I am loathe to take, same brother-in-law and sister-in-law discussed with my husband to have separate kitchens. On the ground floor I will live with my children. Husband and my father-in-law and mother-in-law and they will have a separate kitchen upstairs. What I do not like at all that is, separation in a joint family that is about to happen, we have virtually stopped seeing each other. Now they will dance in joy, living separately. My brother- in-law and sister-in-law constantly come up with such suggestions and those suggestions are implemented. We are no body in this house. Let me not speak of myself.
There is no point in my living any more. But these are my last words. My two sons should not be tortured. They need not observe the mourning rituals. When the school re-opens on July 5, they should go to school. They should not miss school even for a day. This is my last wish. I hope it will be fulfillled. Their studies should not suffer.
In this life I have been hurt by mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. I am atoning for my sins. I know they will suffer for what they have done."
4. Besides these two letters, there is the statement of the husband of the deceased who has stated that although his wife was a very emotional person, yet at the same time she was very religious and found of the joint family. There is the statement of Partik, son of the deceased, to the effect that a day prior to the death of the deceased his father was out of station and on the said date his Chacha and Chachi and Dadi had a quarrel with his mother which was one of the usual which they constantly used to have. On the basis of this material, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge, as stated above. What, therefore, required to be seen is whether on the basis of this material, the trial court was justified in framing the charge of 'abetment to suicide'. In Brij Lal and others Vs. State of Delhi, 1985 CC Cases (HC) 130, His Lordship Mr. Justice H.L. Anand has put the proposition that has baffled us for long in these words:
"13. The problem of life and death has for generations engaged the mind of the lay and the learned alike. It is enigmatic and baffling. Is death the end of life or its real beginning? The question has been answered differently. Different people have reacted differently to the problem. Millions have lived or at least tried to live what they considered to be fully because life must come to an end. Others have failed to live well for fear of death. Yet there are others who believe life which is meant for higher pursuits has been wasted in "mere living". Death is inevi- table yet mortals behave as if they were immortals. But even if death is inevitable, very few people are prepared to face it. We all try to escape it. We do not even recognize its inevitability. That seems to be clear from normal human action and behaviour. But there may be those who may live in the hope of "dying in dignity". That is what philosophy is all about. Death by choice is, however, rare. That is the privilege of self-realized souls or perhaps great philosophers. death by choice in such cases is even enthroned by certain oriental religions, including Hinduism. That is an act by which, on the realisation of the self, the soul leaves the body of its own volition. But there may be death to escape the life of indignity, humiliation, torment or harassment. Such death is not a voluntary or rational act. It is purely involuntary, brought about by a variety of objective conditions, which are oppressive, degrading, and disgusting to a point that the victim chooses to take his own life. Law recognises a right to die so long as the right is effectively exercised. An abortive attempt to take life is, however penal; a successful attempt at self-destruction is not. But where an act of suicide is not a voluntary act but is committed under the compulsion of adverse circumstances, the law punishes those who could be held responsi- ble for bringing it about, directly or indirectly, either by active suggestion or by creating objective conditions which drive the victim to it, but only if these are intended to achieve the desired object. A philosophic suggestion or an intemperate and indiscreet eruption in a fit a anger could not constitute an act of abetment. An act of abetment must be intended to operate on the mind of the victim so as to lead him to disaster. The homo- sapiens are in constant search for pleasure, which they mistake for happiness, both of which, however, elude them. There is a yawning gap between their expectations and what life can offer to them. With all their quest for happiness, people are, by and large, unhappy for a variety of reasons, some of which they are themselves contributory while the others are beyond their con- trol. There are variety of pressures in social and domestics life all of which operate on the rational mind. The sensitivity of the people also differs depending on their background, age, state of health and financial condition. Everybody has different level of tolerance. The coping mechanism is not uniform. Some are able to withstand various pressures, while others succumb to them. When someone, therefore, commits suicide, it raises difficult ques- tions as to the motivation for it, the compulsions for it, the conditions that drove the person to the extreme step and those who were, wittingly or unwittingly, intentionally or unintention- ally responsible for it. If a person is guilty of abetment or not would depend on how one answers these questions and these ques- tions could be effectively answered not only with reference to the last words of the victim, which may or may not be unbiased, but also material with regard to the background of the victim, the state of the environments in which the act was committed and the conduct of the suspect at the time of the commission of the act and subsequent thereto.
14. There is a growing public awareness of citizens' rights and of the deficiencies of the systems with the resultant public agitation over acts of misuse, abuse and improper use of execu- tive power and of instances of harassment or indifference to public grievances by the law enforcement agencies. This is partly because of the environment of populism generated by some of the political measures at the Centre and in the states. The public awareness and the susceptibility of the public to agitational approach to problems, though a healthy sign in a democratic set- up, poses its own peculiar challenge in that executive action which should normally be just, fair and reasonable having regard to the legal requirements and the objective situation, tends to deteriorate into executive excess under public pressure either to assuage justified or unjustified public sentiments or to seek justifiable or unjustifiable public approbation for wholly irrelevant and extraneous purposes. What may justify public condemna- tion or the morally improper need not necessarily be legally actionable or be culpable in criminal law or call for police intervention. What may justify registration of a criminal case may or may not justify framing of a charge, and the reason for framing of a charge does not necessarily justify a conviction on the charge at the trial. Each of these have their own legal requirements as also situation justification. It may, and often happens, that police action is initiated in response to public agitation, even though such action may not be legally justified. Thus prosecutions, nay be and have been launched merely because there was a popular upsurge for it because the event excited public condemnation or sympathy or sentiments of compassion. Once a prosecution is filed, even courts have not lagged behind in moulding relief as a response to possible public reaction either to assuage sentiments and even for public acclaim in controver- sial matters. These are instances of both executive and judicial populism, which must be condemned unreservedly even though they may not arise out of any motivation of personal gain or even personal prejudice. The moral side of an action or the social reaction of an order or an event not altogether irrelevant, but could not legitimately form the only basis of any legal action, whether executive, legislative or judicial, which must be based on all relevant and material considerations. Extension of the creed of populism in the realm of executive, legislative or judicial, action must be discouraged in any system based on the concept of rule of law, even though one may have no control ever it in a purely political field.
15. The increasing incidents of bride burning as indeed of stray cases of harassment of and even of suicide by the mother of the husband, who is proverbially painted as the "villain of the peace" in the domestic scene have, by and large, their genesis in the dismal failure of a husband to strike a reasonable balance between his conflicting loyalty to an again mother, mostly a widow, in an advanced age, on the one hand, and the growing expectations of a young wife, at the threshold of a marital career, looking for freedom and minor pleasures of life, on the other. The introduction, on the marriage, of a comparative stranger into the domestic scene introduces a new power centre in domestic life of a family where the mother has held the tradi- tional sway for a number of decades unchallenged by any other female member of the family. The situation normally calls for adjustment, circumspection, and caution, on both sides, but these are not always possible for a variety of reasons. There are economic conflicts, apart from clash of personalities, tempera- mental difference, and conflicting egoes. These are essentially problems of harmony between conflicting pulls. loyalties, and interests.
16. Although the fall out of the conflict may either be on the unfortunate bride, or not so fortunate mother-in-law, there is a qualitative difference between their respective circumstances and situations. While cases of bride burning or of suicide by a married girl evoke intense sentiments of sympathy, similar fate that the mother-in-law meets may or may not evoke similar feeling not at least with the same intensity. The reason is not far to seek. The mother-in-law has ordinarily held a sway over the affairs of the family for decades, even though she must have also suffered initially as a young bride at the hands of her mother-in-law, but has apparently weathered the storm, but feels increasingly alienated, and has a crisis of identity with the emerging competing centre of power in the daughter-in-law. The neglect of the mother and her financial needs as also if she is a widow a concern for her insecurity may aggravate the unfavourable environment for her. It is rarely that all this can add up to a mother being driven, as it were, to a state of desperation or deprivation in which suicide is the only respectable escape. However, in the case of a young bride, constant taunts, indifference, neglect or pressures may be intended to extort financial gain from her unfortunate parents, if according to the husband or the other members of his family, the marriage was not sufficiently profitable financial bargain. The bride in such a situation is surrounded by near hostile elements, and may feel almost driven to a state of desperation in which self-immolation may appear to her to be the only source of liberation. The two cases do not appear to me to have a parallel. While the consistent courses of torture, humiliation, neglect and oppression may, in one situation, amount to abetment to an act of suicide, it need not necessarily be so in the other, unless there are other compelling circumstances, which lend support to such a conclusion. In either case, much will depend on the background of the victim concerned, state of her mind, the extent of pressure or torture to which she was subjected, how sensitive or insensitive was her nature, as also on the conduct of the relations said to be responsible for it, at the time of and after the incident, but in either case, the dying declaration, by itself, may not be conclusive as to the totality of these circumstances."
5. Coming to the case in hand, what is to be seen is whether the ingredi- ents of Section 107 and 108 IPC are made out to justify an offence under Section 306. 'Abetment to suicide' is punishable under Section 306 which provides that if any person commits suicide. whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished. The section does not define the expres- sion "abettor" nor is the expression defined in Chapter-II of the Code which deals with general explanation. However, Chapter-V of the Code incorporates an elaborate treatment of "abetment". Section 107 of this Chapter defines "abetment of a thing" while Section 108 defines "abettor". These sections run as under:
"Section 107 - Abetment of a thing:
"A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
Firstly - 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 dis- close, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
Section 108 - Abettor:
"A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1.- The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation 2.- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
Explanation 3. - It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of Committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
Explanation 4. - The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment also an offence.
Explanation 5.- It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed."
6. The expressions "abetment" and "abettor" have been legislatively defined. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the expression would not be determinative of their import. Some decisions that have set precedents arising out of other instances of instigation, throw considerable light on what is the offence under Section 306. In the case of Parimal Chatterjee & Ors.(AIR 1932 Cal.760) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court observed that the word "instigate" literally means to goad or urge forward or to provoke, incite, urge or encourage to do an act. A person may however not only instigate another but he may co-operate with him and his Co-operation may consist of counsel or conjoint action and that in either case, there was an abetment. In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ranen Nath and other a Division Bench of the Patna High Court was constru- ing Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes Act which uses the expressions 'Instigation and incitement' and observed that the words should be read to signify something deeper than a mere asking of a person to do a particular act. There must be something in the nature of solicitation to constitute instigation or incitement: and it was held that the words seem to convey the meaning "to goad or urge forward or to provoke or encourage the doing of an act.' It was further observed that what acts should amount to insti- gation or incitement within the meaning of that section will depend upon the "particular facts of each case". and that in some circumstances a "throw of a finger" or "a mere turning of the eye" may give rise to an inference of either "incitement or instigation, and yet in others even "strong words, expressly used, may not mean that the person using them was stimulating or suggesting or anyone to do a particular act." The court expressed the vie that there must be something "tangible" in evidence to show that the persons responsible for such action were "deliberately trying to stir up other persons to bring about a certain object". According to a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, a person abets the doing of a thing when he or she, inter alia, "instigates any person to do that thing". The other modes of abetment, besides instigation, are "conspiracy and international aid". The word "instigation" are literally means "to goad or urge forward to do an act." "It is something more than co-operation".
7. In the case of Prem Chand, (1978 (6) C.L.R.224) the Punjab and Haryana High Court was concerned with a charge of abetment of suicide by a wife and it was held that even if it may be assumed that "the relations were strained" then also "it is not safe" to convict the appellant for an of- fence of abetment to commit suicide. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of that court in the case of Rajinder Pal and another (Crl.Appeal No.997/64 decided on 1.2.65) in which that court had observed that no case of abetment was made out because there was nothing on the record to show that any of "the appellants did anything positive to help the deceased in committing the suicide within the meaning of Explanation 2 of Section 107 of the Penal Code". If someone's son or daughter fails in examination and his parents "scold him by saying that he or she better drown himself or herself rather than fail"; or a person does not succeed in obtaining his object and his friends and others "taunt him by saying he should dire rather than live"; and suppose if such a person on such taunting goes and puts an end to his life, surely the person who taunted his could not be said to be responsible for abetment of the commission of that offence. It was further held by the Punjab High Court that the "subsequent conduct of the accused" was such, which is inconsistent with the charge of instiga- tion. The deceased was of "pevish nature" and was extremely sensitive and she took to heart a petty family quarrel." Such quarrels do occur in family life. She suffered from "depression and had a diseased mind". She committed suicide on account of her diseased mind and the appellant tried his best to save her but in vain. In the case of Gurdip Kumar, (1981 Crl.L.J.NOC, 178) it was observed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that a case of abet- ment was not made out where suicide was committed by a newly married girl, in tense family atmosphere, due to certain disturbances, no act or illegal omissions having been attributed to husband and parents-in-law and that they could not be held guilty because "She was not taking food and her husband or parents-in-law made no effort to persuade her to take food." It was held that in the circumstances the victim must be deemed to have "dropped down as a sensitive girl not able ** withstand normal jolts of life". In the case of Hari Singh, (1983 C.L.R., 123) the wife had committed suicide by taking poison. The accused had absconded after alleged occur- rence. The prosecution version was that the accused gave "beating" to his wife and said to her in anger that "She could die by taking poison if she liked". It was held that "this fact by itself could not amount be culpable instigation for commission of suicide". It was further observed that the beating alleged to have been given also did not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In the case of Gurcharan Singh, (1983 CCC 350) Aggarwal, J. of this Court, had held that the fact that the petitioner had "maltreated" the wife and thereby "created circumstances which made the deceased to end her life will not amount to abetment within the meaning of the word `abet- ment' as defined in section 107 of the Indian Penal Code". This decision was, however, reversed by the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No.51/84 decided on Jan.27, 1984) in appeal on the charge. It was held that the court was not justified in quashing the charge." In the case of Raj Kumar (1983 Crl.L.J. 706) a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that third clause of Section 107 envisages "not a simple omission but an illegal omission". The omission would be illegal only if what has been omitted to be done by the accused" was required under the law to be done by him". It was further held that where the accused charge with abetting suicide of the wife of one of them, "failed to dissuade the lady from committing suicide when she threatened to commit suicide and actually committed suicide by setting fire to her clothes after sprinkling kerosene on them, the accused could not be said to be guilty of illegal omission contemplated by clause(3)". It was further held that the "report by the accused that the deceased could do what she liked when the deceased threat- ened to commit suicide if one of the accused, her husband, did not agree to her request, did not amount to instigation.
8. The law on the subject, to my mind, is that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commissioning of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposi- tion of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime, intentionally aiding and, there- fore, active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107 IPC, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram & Anr Vs. State of U.P., . It is, however, difficult to lay down the exact acts of commission or omission which amount to abetment depending upon facts of the each case but the principles have already been laid down in precedents.
9. Scrutinising the material on record of the case, under scrutiny, the same does not in any way satisfy the ingredients essential to book the accused under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC. The statements recorded at the most show that the deceased was "sensitive, religious and devoted person who was finding the normal wear and tear of life difficult to cope with. The letters also indicate this bent of mind. Therefore, to read more in the material than there is, would not be permissible. In the absence of any other material, the trial of the accused on the charge stated above would appear to be an exercise in futility and if the accused must ultimately be acquitted on the material, it would certainly be an abuse of the process of the court to subject them to the agony of trial, particularly, where the accused must have already suffered the mental agony and humiliation because of the unfortunate events. Further proceedings in such a case could not be described but as impelled by judicial malice howsoever condemnable socially may be the action or inaction of those who had the moral and legal obliga- tion to keep the deceased happy and contended.
10. In the result, the petition succeeds. The impugned order is set aside and the charge under Sections 306 & 498-A IPC is quashed.