Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Buta Ram on 4 September, 2019
S. C. No.56200/2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GORAKH NATH PANDEY
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No.DLWT010002062013
Sessions Case No.:56200/2016
FIR No. : 179/2013
Under Section : 306/34 IPC
Police Station : Uttam Nagar
IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE Vs. (1) Buta Ram
S/o late Sh. Dinanath,
R/o R/o A22, 25, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(since expired and proceedings
against him abated)
(2) Usha Rani,
W/o late Sh. Buta Ram,
R/o A22, 25, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
(3) Sukhdev @ Sonu,
S/o late Sh. Buta Ram,
R/o A22, 25, Mohan Garden,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar
U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.1/80
S. C. No.56200/2016
Date of receiving the case upon committal : 02.07.2013
Date on which judgment was reserved : 29.08.2019
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.09.2019
Decision : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons namely Buta Ram (now deceased), Usha Rani and Sukhdev @ Sonu were sent for trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC on the allegations they in furtherance of their common intention abetted the suicide of deceased namely Rajender Kumar Saxena, his wife Amita Singh alongwith their children Tipu and Soyam on 06.04.2013 at House No.A1/23, Mohan Garden, Delhi,
2. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is as under:
2.1 On 06.04.2013, PW14 Sh. Vikas Mudgal informed the police at 100 number from his mobile no.9716255862 regarding fire and smoke coming from the house of deceased. Upon receipt of DD No.8A Ex.PW15/A dated 06.04.2013, ASI Surti Ram/PW15 alongwith Ct.
Mahesh/PW7 reached the spot i.e. H.No.A1/23, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and found that smoke was coming from the said house. In State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.2/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 the mean time, fire brigade team also reached there and broken open the main gate of the house in order to enter into the house and extinguished the fire. On entering the house, dead bodies of two male child, one man and one woman were found in burnt condition. Crime team was called at the spot and spot was got photographed. Upon Inquiry nearby the spot, the names of occupants of House No.A1/23, Mohan Garden were revealed as Rajender Prakash Saxena, Amita Singh, W/o Sh. Rajender Prakash Saxena, Tipu and Soyam and that the dead bodies are of those persons. PW15 ASI Surti Ram found a suicide note written on the wall of a temple constructed on the roof of third floor written by Rajender Kumar Saxena and his wife Amita Singh to the effect that they are compelled to commit suicide due to the harassment and torture by Buta Ram, his wife Usha Rani and son Sukhdev on the issue of purchase of house and money transaction. It was further written that no one from the family members of Rajender Saxena and Amita Saxena are responsible for their suicide; Rajender Saxena had already intimated the DCP and his other family members in this regard. The names of Rajender Saxena, Amita Saxena and both the children were written at the end of suicide note. Jai Prakash, brother of Amita Saxena also reached the spot and State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.3/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 produced one white envelope containing suicide note to ASI Surti Ram which was given to him by his sister alongwith Rs.25000/ to give the same to Bank Manager after hearing the phone. The envelope was opened by Jai Prakash in the presence of ASI Surti Ram, SHO and SI Rampal containing suicide note. Thereafter, statement of Jai Prakash Ex.PW1/A was recorded.
2.2. PW15 ASI Surti Ram seized the suicide note and envelope and the FIR was registered under Section 306/34 IPC against the accused persons. After registration of FIR, further investigation of this case was assigned to SI Rampal/PW9.
2.3 During the investigation, SI Rampal prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A of the spot at the instance of ASI Surti Ram and lifted the exhibits i.e. blood samples from the door, entrance door, wall etc. and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW9/B. He also seized the burnt clothes, burnt debries, two bottles containing some liquid of golden yellow colour vide memo Ex.PW9/C. He also seized three sketch pens of orange, blue and black colour from third floor and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW9/D. He also written the contents of suicide note written on the wall on a paper Ex.PW2/A. Accused Buta Ram, Sukhdev and State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.4/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 Usha Rani were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/D; their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/E to Ex.PW1/G. The dead bodies were got identified in the hospital by their relatives and the same was preserved in mortuary of DDU Hospital for postmortem and after the postmortem, the same was handed over to their relatives. ASI Surti Ram/PW15 collected the school record of both the deceased children. Complainant and his brothers identified the handwriting of Rajender Kumar Saxena and Amita Singh; admitted handwriting of the deceased was collected from PW8 Sh. Prem Prakash and was sent to FSL for expert opinion. Postmortem reports of the deceased persons Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/D were collected and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
3. Charges for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306/34 were framed against all three accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution evidence: To prove the charges against the accused persons, the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.5/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 prosecution examined 19 witnesses in all. For sake of convenience, a brief description of all the prosecution witnesses as well as their testimony and the documents relied upon by them is mentioned herein below: PWName Nature of evidence Documents proved.
PW1 Jai Prakash Complainant. Ex.PW1/A
On 06.04.2013, identified dead (Statement/complaint);
bodies of her sister, her husband Ex.PW1/B to PW1/G and both nephews; after (arrest memos and postmortem, received their dead personal search memo bodies and cremated the same. of accused persons respectively).
PW2 Lady Ct. Conducted the personal search Ex.PW1/G. Anna of accused Smt. Usha Rani at (Personal search PS on 06.04.2013 but nothing memo) was recovered from her possession PW3 Ct. Sukram On 06.04.2013 alongwith ASI Ex.PW3/A1 to Pal, Photographer Azad Singh and HC Lalit visited PW3/A43 the spot where four dead bodies (photographs taken by ie one male, one female and two him at the spot) children were lying and took 43 Ex.PW3/B1 to photographs of the spot, dead PW3/B43 (negatives bodies, articles, iron grill, wall, of the photographs). wooden door as well as suicide State vs. Buta Ram & Ors. FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.6/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 note written on the wall of a room at top floor form different angles. PW4 SI Azad On 06.04.2013, alongwith Ct. Ex.PW4/A (Scene of Singh Sukrampal and HC Lalit Kumar crime report). visited the spot and inspected the spot; prepared scene of crime report and handed over to IO. PW5 Sh. Anshul Proved the admission form and Ex.PW5/A and PW5/B Dewan, Vice admission withdrawal register of (copy of relevant Principal, Spring Tatikesha Parkash Saxena, S/o record); Ex.PW5/C Meadows Public Sh. Rajender Parkash Saxena. (letter given by him to School, Dwarka SI Ram Pal) and More Metro Ex.PW5/D (seizure Station, Uttam memo of the said Nagar, Delhi. letter). PW6 Sh. Om Brother of deceased Amita Ex.PW6/A (receipt by Prakash Singh. which the dead bodies were received). PW7 Ct. Mahesh On receipt of DD No.8A, reached at the spot on 06.04.2014, at about 5.45 pm, alongwith ASI Surti Ram where they saw smoke coming out of the house. State vs. Buta Ram & Ors. FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.7/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 PW8 Prem Brother of deceased Amita Seizure memo of Prakash. Singh. complaint dated 12.12.2010 made by deceased Rajender against Buta Ram Ex.PW8/A; complaint dated 24.01.2011 to the DCP Ex.PW8/B; complaint dated 03.02.2011 to Lt. Governor Ex.PW8/C; Sale deed dated 02.03.2010 Ex. PW8/D; sale deed dated 02.12.2009 Ex.PW8/E; complaint dated 04.06.2012 to Commissioner of Police Ex.PW8/F; copy of document of treatment of Rajender Prakash Ex.PW8/G; order sheet dated 25.09.14 Ex.PW8/H and reply to the application u/o 22 rule 3 filed by deceased Usha Rani in civil suit State vs. Buta Ram & Ors. FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.8/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 no.448/12/12 Ex.PW8/J; FIR no. 275/13, PS Uttam Nagar Ex.PW8/K; application moved by deceased Amita Singh to continue proceedings in complaint case no. 706/04/12 Ex.PW8/L and order dated 27.04.2013 Ex.PW8/M. PW9 SI Ram Pal Investigating Office. Site plan of the spot prepared by him as Ex.PW9/A, seizure memo of blood lifted from door, entrance door, wall inside another door as Ex.PW9/B; seizure memo of bottles containing liquid of golden yellow colour seized from the spot as Ex.PW9/C; three sketch pens of orange, blue and block colour (without cap) as State vs. Buta Ram & Ors. FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.9/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 Ex.PW9/D; form 25.35B filled at the time of postmortem as Ex.PW9/E, PW9/F, PW9/G and PW9/H; request of postmortem as Ex.PW9/I; brief facts of case as Ex.PW9/J; statement of Raj Bhatnagar as Ex.PW9/K; seizure memo of documents which were handed over by Om Prakash Ex.PW9/M; various documents filed by Amita against accused Usha Rai as Ex.PA1 to PA97; FSL report (Biology) Ex.PW9/O alongwith application Ex.PW9/N. Witness has also identified the documents which were sent to FSL to ascertain the handwriting of deceased Amita Singh State vs. Buta Ram & Ors. FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.10/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 and Rajender Saxena as Ex.PW9/P1 to PW9/P28 and FSL report Ex.PW9/Q. Witness has also identified the sketch pens seized from the spot as Ex.PW10/A1 (Colly); one empty plastic bottle seized from the spot as Ex.PW10/A2; one plastic bottle lifted by him from the spot as Ex.PW10/A3; debris seized by him from the spot as Ex.PW10/A4; five pieces of clothes seized from the spot as Ex.PW10/A5; debris seized from the spot as Ex.PW10/A6 and Ex.PW10/A7. PW10 HC Satbir Upon receipt of information He identified the Singh regarding committing suicide by sketch pens seized
four persons reached at the spot from the spot as alongwith PW4 on 06.04.2013. Ex.PW10/A1 (Colly);
one empty plastic State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.11/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 bottle seized from the spot as Ex.PW10/A2;
one plastic bottle lifted by him from the spot as Ex.PW10/A3; debris seized by him from the spot as Ex.PW10/A4;
five pieces of clothes
seized from the spot as
Ex.PW10/A5; debris
seized from the spot as
Ex.PW10/A6 and
Ex.PW10/A7
PW11 HC Shaym Proved the relevant entry of Ex.PW11/A to Nandan, MHCM` Register no.19 vide which the Ex.PW11/D. case property was deposited in the Malkhana and sent to FSL.
PW12 Dr. B.N. Conducted the postmortem on Postmortem reports
Mishra, Medical the dead bodied of deceased Ex.PW12/A to
officer cum persons ib 08.04.2013. PW12/D
Medico Legal
Expert and
Criminologist,
Department of
Forensic
Medicines, DDU
Hospital, Delhi.
State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar
U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.12/80
S. C. No.56200/2016
PW13 Sh. Raj On 08.04.2013, identified dead
Bhatnagar, who is bodies and received the same for
the Maternal uncle cremation from mortuary of
of deceased DDU Hospital.
Rajender Prasad.
PW14 Sh. Vikas Called the police at 100 number Mudgal. on 06.04.2013 at about 05:13 am regarding fire and smoke coming from house of his neighbour Rajender Prasad.
PW15 ASI Surti Upon receipt of DD no.8A dated DD No. 8A Ram 06.04.2013 reached at spot; Ex.PW15/A and along with PW7 Mahesh; called endorsement made by crime team; sent all dead bodies him on the statement to hospital through Ct. Mahesh; of complainant as recorded statement of Jai Ex.PW15/B. Prakash/PW1 and endorsed the same.
PW16 SI Jasbir Filed the FSL report alongwith Application vide Singh application in the court on which the FSL report 10.07.2014. was filed in the court as Ex.PW16/A; FSL report filed by him in the court as Ex.PW16/B and FSL report dated 03.01.2014 regarding State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.13/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 the documents along with application filed by him in the court as Ex.PW16/C. PW17 Ms. Examined the parcels of case Ex.PW17/A Monika Sr. properties in the office of FSL (Serological Report).
Scientific on 15.10.2013. Assistant (Biology) FSL, Rohini, Delhi. PW18 Sh. Amit Examined the parcels of case FSL Report
Rawat, Assistant properties in the office of FSL Ex.PW16/B Director on 15.10.2013.
(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi.
PW19 Sh. Examined the parcels of case FSL respot Ex.PW9/Q;
Vijender Singh properties/documents in the documents Mark
Assistant Director office of FSL on 07.10.2013. PW19/A1 to
(Documents), FSL, PW19/A26 and
Rohini, Delhi. photographs
Ex.PW19/A1 to Ex.
PW19/A2
5. During the course of trial, the accused Buta Ram died on 20.06.2015 and proceedings against him have been abated.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.14/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
6. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. of accused persons namely Usha Rani and Sukhdev were recorded on 10.08.2017 wherein all the incriminating evidence and documents on record against accused persons were put to them to which their stand was of denial. The accused persons claimed that "they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Their arrest in this case are motivated and the aforesaid case was registered against them just to extort money."
7. In their defence, the accused examined Sh. Neeraj Anand as DW1 who deposed as under "I knew Rajender Saxena and his family since 2009. People used to come frequently at the house of the deceased Rajender Saxena and there used to be quarrels between them as Rajender Saxena had borrowed money from them. The deceased Rajender Saxena was a drunkard and used to remain under depression. I never heard or saw any quarrel of accused persons with deceased Rajender Saxena or his family members. I also know the accused Sukhdev and his family. Accused persons were living in peace and harmony and had a clean image in the society. In my presence, accused persons never called deceased Amita a prostitute or deceased Rajender Saxena by a bad name. Deceased Rajender Saxena State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.15/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 committed suicide in the intervening night of 06/07.04.2013 out of depression".
The accused persons also examined DW2 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert.
8. I have heard the arguments from both sides.
It is argued on behalf of State that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons in view of the testimony of the witnesses examined and material produced, so, they be convicted. It is argued that the suicide note Ex.P2 against the accused persons is sufficient to prove their guilt.
Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused persons have argued that there is want of direct and cogent proof of the fact that the accused persons abetted the suicide in question; there is no evidence to show that the deceased persons ended their life for the words or actions attributed to the accused persons; that there are no eye witnesses to the incident and depositions of the witnesses are all nothing but hearsay. It is further argued that there is no material/incriminating evidence against the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.16/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 accused persons on record and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond releasable doubt. The accused persons cannot be held responsible for the offence because there had been previous litigations including criminal cases between the parties. It is further submitted that there is no consistency in the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and accused have been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that there is material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the case of prosecution is not free from doubts; the benefit of such doubt is required to be given to the accused persons. The counsel for the accused persons have also filed written arguments in support of their contentions while relying on the judgments as under:
(i) 1996 Cr. L.J. 894 S.C., Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.
(ii) 2000 VI A.D. (Delhi) 902 titled Hira Lal Jain v. State.
(iii) 2014 (1) SCC 223 (P.B - RY) titled Jagdeep Kaur v. State.
(iv) 2002 Crl. L. J. 2796 SC Sanju @ Sanjay S. Sengar v. State of M.P.
(v) AIR 2010 SCC 512, Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal.
(vi) 2009 X AD (DELHI) 720 titled Ajit Singh v. State.
(vii) AIR 1975 SC 290 Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors.
(viii) AIR 1979 SC 1408 titled Suraj Mal v. State. State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.17/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
(ix) AIR 1989 SC 1762 Shivaji Dayenu Patil v. State of Maharashtra.
(x) 2017 (4) LRC 415 (Del) State v. Jitender Kumar & Anr.
(xi) 2000 (4) Crimes 283 SC Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab.
(xii) 2012 (3) J.C.C. 2135 titled State v. Ramesh Sharma.
(xiii) AIR 1993 SC 1892 titled Varkey Josepth v. State of Kerala
9. I have considered the arguments addressed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the counsel for the accused persons and perused the records .
10. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it can not drive any benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt never shifts and always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.18/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 to acquittal.
It has been held in Sadhu Singh Vs State of Punjab 1997 (3) Crimes 55, that to bring home conviction, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond the pale of reasonable doubt by establishing an unbroken chains of events, leading to commission of the offence. It is further a settled proposition of law that once this chain is broken or a plausible theory of another possibility is shown, the accused becomes entitled to the benefit of doubt which ultimately leads to his/her acquittal.
11. In Harbir Singh v. Sheeshpal & Ors. (2016) SCC 418, it was observed that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.19/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
12. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. As observed in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera v. State of Odisha reported 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336, the conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important.
13. The Apex Court in Veer Singh & Ors. Versus State of UP reported in (2014) 2 SCC 455, has observed that :
"17. Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable.
State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.20/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and Anr. V. State of Madras : AIR 1957 SC 614; Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR 2008 SC 1381; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal : AIR 2010 SC 3638; Mahesh and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh : (2011) 9 SCC 626; Prithipal Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. : (2012) 1 SCC 10; Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana : JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) : 2013 (12) SCALE 504)".
14. In the present case, the accused persons have been charged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Before going into the factual aspects of the case, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 306 IPC which 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."
15. Under Section 306 IPC, whoever abets commission of suicide is held liable for abetment of suicide.
16. Section 107 IPC defines abetment as under: "107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.21/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 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 1A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which 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."
17. Thus, the offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that things ; or second engages State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.22/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or third intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge or bring about any persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided in the three clauses of Section 107 IPC. As such, in the case of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
18. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar vs. State of H.P.: (2017) 7 SCC 780, wherein, the Supreme Court elaborated upon the expression abetment as under: "34. The word "abetment" has not been explained in Section 306 IPC. In this context, the definition of abetment as provided under Section 107 IPC is pertinent. Section 306 IPC seeks to punish those who abet the commission of suicide of other. Whether the person has abetted the commission of suicide of another or not is to be gathered from facts and circumstances of each case and to be found out by continuous conduct of the accused, involving his mental element. Such a requirement can be perceived from the reading of Section 107 IPC. Section 107 IPC reads as under:
"107. Abetment of a thing.********* "Abetment", thus, means certain amount of active suggestion or support to do State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.23/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 the act.
35. Analysing the concept of "abetment", as found in Section 107 IPC, a two Judge Bench in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] has held: (SCC p. 610, paras 13 & 15) "13. As per the section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing a thing, if he, 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 to Section 107 states that any wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact which he is bound to disclose, may also come within the contours of "abetment". It is manifest that under all the three situations, direct involvement of the person or persons concerned in the commission of offence of suicide is essential to bring home the offence under Section 306 IPC.
***
15. As per clause Firstly in the said section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing,who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] ." In the said authority, the learned Judges have referred to the pronouncement in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] .
36. The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another person when he actively suggests or stimulates him to an act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.24/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 or encouragement. Instigation may be in (express) words or may be by (implied) conduct.
37. The word "urge forward" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something, to make a person to move more quickly in the particular direction, specially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person instigating another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. In order to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kept on urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until the deceased reacted. A casual remark or something said in routine or usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as "abetment".
38. Analysing further, in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , the Court has observed thus: (SCC p. 134, para 12) "12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC."
(emphasis supplied)
39. In Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal [Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 146] , it has been ruled:
(SCC p. 741, para 18) "18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.25/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. ..." (emphasis supplied)
40. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , the Court, after referring to the authorities in Randhir Singh [Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 56] , Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. [Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701] and Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat [Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 4 SCC 52 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 62] , has held: (Amalendu Pal case [Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 896] , SCC p. 712, para 12) "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. 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 there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the art of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
41. A twoJudge Bench in Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. [Netai Dutta v. State of W.B., (2005) 2 SCC 659 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 543] , while dwelling on the concept of abetment under Section 107 IPC especially in the context of suicide note, observed: (SCC p. 661, paras 67) "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 State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.26/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 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.
7. Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the first information report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal."
42. At this juncture, we think it appropriate to reproduce two paragraphs from Chitresh Kumar Chopra [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367] . They are: (SCC p. 611, paras 16 & 19) "16. Speaking for the threeJudge Bench in Ramesh Kumar case [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , R.C. Lahoti, J. (as his Lordship then was) said that 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. 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 State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.27/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
***
19. As observed in Ramesh Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an "instigation" may be inferred. In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation." (emphasis in original) This Court again observed: (SCC pp. 61112, para 20)
20. ... The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of selfrespect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self protection or an escapism from intolerable self." (emphasis in original)"
(underlining supplied)"
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.28/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
19. The issue therefore arises for consideration in the matter is whether the accused persons are guilty of the acts and utterances attributed to them; whether such acts and utterances had only been of insult or intimidation or had been of instigation; and whether such acts and utterances amounted to abetment of suicide. The question is whether any of the aforesaid clauses of Section 107 IPC is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to bring the present case within the purview of Section 306 IPC.
20. In the present case, it is not dispute that the deceased Rajender Saxena, Amita Singh, Master Tipu and Soyam Prakash had died otherwise than under normal circumstances. PW12 Dr. B. N. Mishra, Medical Officer cum Medico Legal Expert and Criminologist, Department of Forensic Medicine, DDU Hospital conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of deceased Rajender Prasad Saxena, Smt. Amita Singh, Master Soyam and Master Tipu on 08.04.2013 vide PM reports No.427/13, 428/13, 430/13 and 429/13 Ex.PW12/A to Ex.PW12/D respectively and bodies were identified by Om Prakash and Raj Bhatnagar; the dead bodies were highly burnt State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.29/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 which resulted into reduction of body mass of about 1/3rd part; all natural contours were destroyed and not liable for identification; no ante mortem injuries were detected on the bodies of the deceased persons as all body parts were burnt out and body exhibited the mass of roasted flesh; the ashes deposited on the body of deceased; all internal organs were partly roasted and burnt out and many bones exposed with partly burning of it. The witness further opined that the cause of death was due to shock caused by fire/thermal injury in all four bodies.
During crossexamination, witness deposed that all the four bodies were very extensively and deeply burnt by fire and converted into mass of flesh and only 1/3rd part of body mass was remained and therefore, under the aforesaid circumstances the bodies can not be identified. The witness further admitted that all the features of the bodies had been distorted and burnt out amd bodies converted into mass of flesh and no steel plate was seized in view of the postmortem report.
It is not the case of the prosecution that it was a homicidal death. Even during the crossexamination of the witness, no such suggestion or defence is put on behalf of the accused persons. The statement of PW12 Dr. B. N. Mishra coupled with the statement of other State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.30/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 witnesses shall prove that the death of deceased Rajender Prasad Saxena, Amita Singh, Master Soayam and Master Tipu have committed suicide by burning.
21. Now the issue remain to be examined as to whether the accused persons had abetted the suicide committed by the deceased persons. Abetment of suicide is confined to the case of persons who has aid or abet the commission of suicide. In the matter of an offence under Section 306 IPC, abetment must attract the definition thereof in Section 107 IPC. Abetment is constituted by instigating a person to commit an offence or engaging in a conspiracy to commit, aid or intentional aiding a person to commit it. It would be evident from a plain reading of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC that, in order to make out the offence of abetment of suicide, necessary proof required is that the culprit is either instigating the victim to commit suicide or has engaged himself in a conspiracy with others for the commission of suicide, or has intentionally aided by an act or illegal omission in the commission of suicide.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.31/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
22. To unfold the case of the prosecution, the material witnesses are PW1 Jai Prakash, PW6 Sh. Om Prakash and PW8 Prem Prakash, all brothers of one of the deceased Smt. Amita Singh. The Ld. counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that as these witnesses are closely related to the deceased and are interested witnesses, their testimony can not be relied and trusted. The contentions of the Ld. counsel for the accused persons have no substance. Merely for the reason that the material witnesses i.e. PW1, PW6 and PW8 are related to the deceased, their testimony can not be rejected. When the witness is closely related then law requires that the testimony of such a witness needs a close scrutiny before any reliance can be placed on it. In this context, in Gangabhavani V Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Ors. (2013) 15 SCC 298, the Supreme Court held as under:
"15...... Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon.
"18. In view of the above, it can safely be held that natural witnesses may not be labelled as interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are those who want to derive some benefit out of the litigation/case. In case the circumstances reveal that a witness State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.32/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 was present on the scene of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime, his deposition cannot be discarded merely on the ground of being closely related to the victim/deceased."
(emphasis added)
23. Similarly, in Mohabbat and Ors. vs. State of M.P. (2009) 13 SCC 630, the Supreme Court held as below:
"11........Merely because the eyewitnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering the prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible." (emphasis added)
24. In view of the settled law, I shall now examine whether the evidence of PW1, PW6 and PW8 examined by the prosecution has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible, reliable and trustworthy or otherwise State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.33/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 alongwith other witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the case.
25. PW14 Sh. Vikas Mudgal deposed that on 06.04.2013 in the morning hours at about 05:00/05:13 am, he woke up and saw the fire and smoke coming out from the house of his neighbour Mr. Saxena and therefore, called the police on 100 number; police and fire brigade reached; gate of the house was broken with the help of police and public and four dead bodies of Mr. Saxena and his family members and the dead bodies were not identifiable being badly burnt.
26. As far as the evidence led by the prosecution is concerned, PW2 L/Ct. Anna, PW3 Ct. Sukhram Pal, PW4 SI Azad Singh, PW5 Anshul Dewan, PW11 H.Ct. Shyam Nandan, PW13 Raj Bhatnagar and PW14 Vikas Mudgal are the formal witnesses. PW2 L/Ct. Anna conducted the personal search of accused Usha Rani vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G; PW3 Ct. Sukhram Pal taken the photographs of the spot, dead bodies, articles, iron grill, wall, wooden door as well as suicide note written on the wall of a room at top floor vide Ex.PW3/A1 to A43 and the negatives Ex.PW3/B1 to B43; PW4 SI Azad Singh prepared the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.34/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 scene of crime report Ex.PW4/A; PW5 Anshul Dewan deposed regarding the admission form, admission withdrawal register relating to Tatikesh, S/o Rajendra Prakash Saxena, letter written to SI Rampal and seizure memo of the letter vide Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B respectively; PW11 H. Ct. Shyam Nandan deposited the parcels to FSL and proved the entry of Register no.19 (running into three pages) Ex.PW11/A, copy of RC Ex.PW11/B and Ex.PW11/C and copy of acknowledgement Ex.PW11/D and Ex.PW11/E.
27. PW13 Raj Bhatnagar on 08.04.2013 identified the dead bodies in Mortuary, DDU Hospital vide statement Ex.PW9/A and deposed that the bodies were badly burnt and they were not in a condition to identify the same. After postmortem, he received the dead bodies vide receipt Ex.PW6/A; his statement was not recorded by the police.
The witness was crossexamined and confronted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the issue of identification of the dead bodies and his statement Ex.PW13/A and he denied that Mr. Saxena had iron rod in his left leg below knee. The witness has denied the suggestion put State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.35/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 by the prosecution even regarding identification of the dead bodies.
During crossexamination by the defence, he deposed that he had good relation with Rajender Saxena and he did not obtain any divorce from his first wife till date; he was not aware if deceased Amita was married to him but deposed that she resided with him since the year 2002. The witness further deposed that there were blood stains on the wall and door of the house of the deceased.
28. PW15 ASI Surti Ram upon receipt of DD No.8A Ex.PW15/A reached at the spot alongwith PW7 Ct. Mahesh and found smoke in the house and the main door of the house was closed. Fire brigade also reached at the spot and after breaking the door entered into the house and extinguished the fire. Four dead bodies were lying at the second floor of the house, crime team was called and dead bodies were sent to Mortuary of DDU Hospital through PW7 Ct. Mahesh. On the roof of the fourth floor, one suicide note on written the wall of the temple which was constructed on the roof written by Rajender Saxena and his wife Amita Singh regarding committing suicide was found. PW15 ASI Surti Ram deposed that at about 08:00/08:30 pm brother of Amita Saxena State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.36/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 namely Jagdish reached there and produced one white envelope containing suicide note which was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/H. PW9 SI Rampal prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A and also written the contents of suicide note written on the wall on a paper vide Ex.PW2/A. When PW15 and PW7 reached at the spot public persons were already present. PW10 also reached at the spot after the incident and participated in the investigation.
During crossexamination, PW9 SI Rampal deposed that the blood marks were found at the spot and no eye witness was found who had seen accused persons entering or leaving the house of deceased. He further deposed that no action on the complaints of the deceased was taken against the accused persons and the witness also deposed regarding the pending litigation between the parties which fact is not denied.
29. The witnesses i.e. PW1 Jai Prakash, PW6 Om Prakash and PW8 Prem Prakash have been examined as material witnesses to prove the case. The statement of PW1 Jai Prakash recorded by the police Ex.PW1/A is translated as under:
State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.37/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 "My sister Amita is 12th passed. About 10/12 years back, marriage between Amita and Rajender Kumar Saxena was solemnized and it was a love marriage. This was the second marriage of Rajender Saxena and his first wife has left him. Rajender Saxena and Amita were residing on rent. In the year 2009, Rajender Saxena purchased a three stories built up property of 50 sq. wards i.e. A1/23, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi from Buta Ram in total consideration amount of Rs.39 lacs and started living in the said house with Amita Singh and both the children Tipu aged about 10 years and Soyam aged about 8 years. Since the circle rate of the property had increased, Buta Ram started making more payment of Rs.22 lacs from Rajender Saxena. On refusal of making payment by Rajender Saxena, Buta Ram, his wife Usha Devi and his son Sukhdev started given threat to Rajender and Amita. The said fact was disclosed to me by Rajender Saxena and Amita. In one part of house No.A1/23, Mohan Garden, Delhi, Buta Ram alongwith his family members was also residing. Buta Ram and their family members used to quarrel with Rajender Saxena on the issue of parking in front of house. They also punctured the vehicle of Rajender Saxena. They also told the persons who came to the house of Rajender Saxena that "Rajender ganda admi hai and Amita dhanda karti hain". Accused persons also used to torn the letters of Rajender Saxena if they found. They also demoralized Rajender Saxena by sending fake customers on his factory. Usha Rani and Sukhdev @ Sonu used to misbehave with Amita Singh. They also threatened the children and for the said reasons, children stop to go to the School. They also filed a false case against my sister and brother in law. I used to go to the house of my sister and my sister and brother in law used to tell me all the facts regarding torturing by accused persons. On 05.04.2013 at about 08:30 pm, I was present at the house of my sister and she brought one stamp pad from me. I gave the stamp pad to my sister and thereafter, went to eat chowmein. At that time, both the children were playing. After some time, my sister gave me one white envelope having the stamp of Amita Food Industries Prop. alongwith Rs.25,000/ to deliver the same to Bank Manager on the next State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.38/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 day after hearing the call on phone. In the night at about 12:30 pm, I talked with my brother in law on phone no.9250444447 as I revealed that they were disappointed. Today, at about 08:00 am, I made a phone call on the mobile number of my brother in law but the phone was switched off. Thereafter, I went to the house of the my sister and came to know that my sister, brother in law and both the nephew have committed suicide by fire due to the torturing of accused persons.
30. The summary of the examination in chief of PW1 Jai Prakash is as noted as follows "Deceased Amita Singh married with Rajender Prasad probably in the year 2002. On 04.04.2013 at about 07:30 pm, I had gone to the matrimonial house of deceased Amita and remained there upto 09:30 pm. Amita had given Rs.25,000/ and one letter kept in an envelope to deposit the said amount in a bank as installment of home loan. He reached his house at 09:30/10:00 pm and called his sister at about 12:00/12:30 pm and talked with his brother in law who told him that in the morning he shall intimate to whom the money of Rs.25,000/ was to be delivered. He talked with his nephew Tipu and disconnected the phone. In the morning, he tried to contact his Jijaji Rajender Prasad but found his phone switched off and thereafter, he visited the matrimonial house of deceased in auto where found police officials were present. He was not permitted by the police to go inside the house and was taken to PS Uttam Nagar. He handed over the letter given to him by his sister to the SHO who opened the envelope. Thereafter, he called his brothers and his family members came to the PS. The witness further deposed that in the evening, he alongwith elder brother and younger brother gone to the spot and found the blood stains on the wall as well as on the doors and returned to the police station. The witness also found that one letter State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.39/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 was pasted on the wall of the roof, regarding pending of a case.
The witness further deposed regarding the other criminal cases pending against the accused persons and property dispute between Buta Ram and deceased Rajender Prasad Saxena. He deposed that the accused persons demanded Rs.23 lacs against the property which was the issue of quarrel between the parties; the accused persons used to torture his Jijaji and sister; his nephew namely Tipu and Soyam were withdrawn from the School on the apprehension of kidnapping. He deposed that accused persons used to send bogus customers as buyer and also used to paste false legal notice outside the house of deceased. The witness identified the dead body of the deceased persons and his statement was recorded vide Ex.PW1/A".
The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police Ex.PW1/A with respect to marriage between Rajender Saxena and Smt. Amita Singh, regarding purchase of the house and consideration amount, demand of amount Rs.22 lacs by the accused Buta Ram from the deceased, threat and harassment given by the accused and quarrel between the parties, quarrel on the issue of parking between the parties and use of defamatory words against deceased Amita Singh. The witness was also crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP regarding the calls and suicide note written in Hindi pasted on wall of roof of third floor in the handwriting of Rajender Saxena and Amita Singh and other suicide note State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.40/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 given to him in the handwriting of Rajender Saxena.
31. The witness was crossexamined by the defence and during crossexamination, he was confronted with his entire statement made to the police vide Ex.PW1/A and his examination in chief. The confrontation of the statement of the witness Ex.PW1/A with his examination in chief during crossexamination established material improvements in his version qua the material allegations against the accused persons. For their relevance, the material parts of the deposition of PW1 during crossexamination which was confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A are extracted as under: "I have stated to the police in my statement that on 04.04.2013 at about 07:30 pm, I had gone to the matrimonial house of my sister Amita and remained there upto 09:30 pm and thereafter, I left from there.
xxxxxx I told the police in my statement that on the same night at about 11:30 pm to 12:00 mid night, I had made a telephonic call to my sister and my brother in law told me that he will tell me in the morning to whom the amount of Rs.25000/ is to be paid xxxxxx I told the police in my statement that after talking with my brother in law, I talked with my nephew Master Tipu for about 5 minutes and thereafter, disconnected the phone.
xxxxxx I told the police in my statement that on the next date in the morning, I State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.41/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 made a call on the telephone number of my Jija but the same was found switched off and thereafter, I tried to contact him 1520 times. I told the police in my statement that in the morning, I made a call at telephone no.9250444447 (belonging to Amita Singh).
xxxxxx I told the police in my statement that thereafter, I hired one auto and reached the house of my sister where I found the police officials present there due to which I became perplexed, I tried to enter the house but police did not permit to enter in the house and asked me to come to the PS Uttam Nagar.
xxxxxx I told the police in my statement that I handed over one envelope to one Mr. Tyagi SHO who opened the same and thereafter, I called my brother and my family members also came to the PS. In the evening, I alongwith my brothers visited the place of occurrence and found the blood stains on the wall and the door.
xxxxxx I told the police in my statement that all the accused persons used to demand Rs.23 lacs as the price of the property has increased.
xxxxxx I told to the police in my statement that the children were withdrawn from the School as there was apprehension that they would be kidnapped by the accused persons.
xxxxxx I told to the police in my statement that on 05.04.2013 when I visited to my deceased sister, I noticed 34 persons sitting on the ground floor of the house of my sister whom I was not knowing and I also came to know that they had called Mr. Sukhdev at mid night".
32. The testimony of the witness was further controverted regarding handing over of the envelope to ASI Surti Ram/PW15, State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.42/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 presence of blood stains on the walls and door, letter pasted on the wall of the room regarding pending cases, criminal cases pending against the accused persons, quantum of amount etc. The witness failed to depose regarding any criminal cases between the parties. During cross examination, the witness failed to answer regarding the property transaction and details of the same, regarding the payments in respect of the transaction and his deposition appears to be mainly in the nature of hearsay evidence. He failed to depose as to when the amount was demanded by the accused persons, when the tyre of vehicle was punctured or date or month of the quarrel as referred in PW1/A. The testimony of the witness further falsified in view of the testimony of DW1 Sh. Neeraj Anand who has been referred by the witness to be present at the time of quarrel between the accused and the deceased. As deposed by him, he was with the deceased persons in the night, took dinner with them and all behaved normal. Admittedly, no complaint has been lodged against the accused persons by the witness till the death of the deceased persons. He further failed to depose regarding financial dealings between the parties, details of the persons who allegedly visited the house of the deceased sent by the accused.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.43/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
33. PW6 Om Prakash is also the brother of deceased Amita Singh who deposed that on 04.04.2013, he received telephonic call from his deceased sister at about 03:00/04:00 pm and his sister told that she is having the fear of her life from the persons i.e. Buta Ram and his son Sonu. On 06.04.2013, he received telephonic call from his brother Jai Prakash regarding non picking of phone by the deceased persons; he also tried to contact them but they did not pick up the phone. Again after half an hour, Jai Prakash informed that "police waaley sabko leke chale gaye hain" and called him at PS Uttam Nagar. Thereafter, he was again informed that his sister, Jija and both children have expired and thereafter, he reached at DDU Hospital and their dead bodies were not identifiable as they were completely burnt.
The witness further deposed that at the second floor of the house of the deceased, there were blood stains on the main door as well as wall adjoining to main door, blood stains on two walls of front side room and therefore, doubt was created that it is not a suicide by burning otherwise blood should not come on the wall. PW6 Om Prakash deposed that Jai Prakash told him that he had seen 4/5 persons in the house of the sister on the ground floor on 05.04.2013 in the night time State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.44/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 and his sister and Jija were disturbed. The witness deposed that a quarrel might have taken place in between his Jija and accused persons and the total payment which was to be made to the accused persons was about Rs.39 lacs.
34. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State as he resiled from his earlier statement Ex.PW6/A given to police regarding the amount of the transaction, puncture of the car of the deceased, use of defamatory statements by the accused persons against the deceased Amita Singh, sending of persons in the factory of Rajender Saxena to demoralize him, quarrel between the parties and filing of false cases. The witness denied regarding the suicide note shown to him by PW1 Jai Prakash and admitted that PW1 Jai Prakash informed him that his Jijaii, sister and children have committed suicide by burning themselves.
35. The witness was also confronted with his statement recorded by the police on 06.04.2013 Ex.PW6/A regarding his telephonic conversation with deceased Amita Singh on 04.04.2013, call made by State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.45/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 PW1 Jai Prakash to his Jija and sister, his making call to his sister & Jija and he was called at PS by PW1 Jai Prakash. The witness deposed that he reached the PS Uttam Nagar at about 10:00/10:30 pm and came to know about the death of deceased persons from SI Rampal. Like PW1, the witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW6/A and there appears to be material improvements in his statement.
The witness was crossexamined but failed to depose regarding the date, month and year when he was informed by his sister regarding the harassment to her by the accused persons, puncture of the car or the quarrel between the parties; who abused his sister and Jija or defamed them. In totality, the testimony of the witness is also in the nature of hearsay evidence.
36. PW8 Prem Prakash, other brother of the deceased Amita Singh, deposed that his sister and brother in law had purchased initially the first floor of the house from Buta Ram and thereafter, ground and second floor for amount of Rs.22.5 lacs and the first floor was purchased for Rs.15 lacs. As circle rate increased, Buta Ram started demanding Rs.22 lacs from his sister and brother in law. Thereafter, Buta Ram came State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.46/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 to their house alongwith 3/4 persons and threatened them that "agar 22 lakh rupaiye nahi diye to makaan par kabza kar lenge aur tumhe marenge peetenge". The accused persons started harassing his sister and Jija on the demands of Rs.22 lacs stating that "tumhara aisa haal kar denge ke jina dubhar ho jayega". This fact was disclosed to him by his sister and Jija. His sister and Jija also disclosed him that accused persons used to quarrel them on the issue of parking and punctured their car; civil cases were also filed by Buta Ram against them. Buta Ram used to send fake persons to the house of his sister who pasted posters on their door noting that "makaan ko seal kar denge, aapka install aaya nahi hai jo due hai". He deposed that on the occasion of Holi i.e. in the month of April/March, 2013, his sister called him telephonically while weeping; he went to her house and his sister and Jija told that accused persons used to threat them to kill and harass them. Thereafter, after about one week, Jai Prakash called him on his mobile phone and informed that his sister was not picking the phone and the phone of his Jija was also switched off.
The witness further deposed that he visited to the spot and found the whole room in burnt condition; the wall of the gallery inside State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.47/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 the house and bathroom were also in burnt condition; there were blood stains on both the doors of the room and on the railing. On 15.04.2013, the witness handed over the documents i.e. four letter head written to Manager PNB of different dates written by his Jija and signed by his sister, photocopy of agreement to sell executed between Usha Rani and his sister of property no.A1/23, First Floor of 50 sq. yards, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, rent agreement dated 24.10.2008 executed between Nisha Gupt and his sister bearings signatures of his sister; rent agreement dated 14.10.2009 executed between Sham Lal Malik and his sister bearing signatures of his sister; photocopy of complaint made by his Jija against Buta Ram dated 12.10.2010 and complaint dated 03.12.2010 made by his father Sh. Virender Kumar Singh against accused Buta Ram; police seized the said documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/A; three cases are pending against the accused persons filed by his sister and Jija regarding threat & cheating; all three accused persons are responsible for the death of his sister Jija and their two children.
Witness has brought the original copy of complaint dated 24.01.2011 made by his sister Amita to Dy. Commissioner of Police, West District, Delhi. He has proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW8/B; State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.48/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 complaint made by his sister to Lt. Governor dated 03.02.2011 as Ex.PW8/C; original sale deed dated 02.03.2010 executed by Smt. Usha Rani and Buta Ram in favour of his sister Amita Singh as Ex.PW8/D; sale deed dated 02.12.2009 executed by Usha Rani and Buta Ram in favour of Amita Singh as Ex.PW8/E; complaint dated 04.06.2012 made to Commissioner of Police, PHQ, Delhi as Ex.PW8/F; copy of the treatment of Rajender Prakash of DDU Hospital dated 25.06.2011 as Ex.PW8/G and copy of complaint made by his Jija as Mark A; certified copy of order sheet dated 25.09.2014 as Ex.PW8/H; certified copy of application u/o 22 Rule 3 as Ex.PW8/I; reply to the said application of civil suit no.448/21/12 titled Smt. Amita Singh v. Smt. Usha Rani and Buta Ram as Ex.PW8/J; copy of FIR no.275/13 under Section 420/406/34 IPC as Ex.PW8/K; certified copy of application moved by him seeking permission to continue proceedings in complaint case no.706/04/12 dated 27.04.2013 as Ex.PW8/M. The witness deposed that in the February/March 2013, a compromise was taken place in between his sister/Jija and accused Buta Ram.
37. The witness was crossexamined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.49/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 State as he resiled from his earlier statement made to the police Ex.PW1/A and was crossexamined on the aspect of consideration amount, harassment and torture by the accused persons to deceased, regarding the suicide note Ex.P2 written on the wall of the temple on the third floor in the writing of Rajender and Amita and its photograph Ex.A34. During crossexamination by the Ld. Addl. PP, he deposed that he do not remember if the property rate of the area were arisen when the accused persons had demanded Rs.22 lacs more on the pretext of increase in circle rate. Infact, the witness was confronted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the Sate as well with his earlier statement Ex.PW8/N recorded by the police as the witness has not supported the prosecution in material aspect.
38. From the testimony of PW8, it is established that he is not the witness of any of the incidents alleged against the accused persons nor he is the signatory or witness of any of the documents supplied by him during investigation. The witness was crossexamined by the defence. His statement was recorded by the police on 06.08.2013 i.e. Ex.PW8/N and he was confronted with his earlier statement at length like PW1 Jai State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.50/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 Prakash and PW6 Om Parkash. Witness during crossexamination admitted that he has not stated to the police the facts as disclosed by him in his examination in chief as detailed therein. Infact, this witness has handed over the documents to the police as detailed above. He admitted that the said documents were not handed over to the police on the day of incident, police did not take any action against the accused on the complaint. No complaint was made by him against the accused persons and he has admitted that "I did not tell the police in my first statement that suicide note written on the wall of the temple on third floor is in the handwriting of my sister and Jijaji; I did not identify the aforesaid handwriting and signatures of my sister and Jijaji on that day before the police. I can not tell any specif date or month when my sister was harassed by the accused persons. I can not tell any specific date or month when a quarrel took place on the issue of paring or puncture of tyre. I can not tell any specific date or month when the demand of money was made or when the incident of harassment took place."
The witness admitted and deposed during his examination in chief that State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.51/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 "In the month of February/March, 2013, a compromise was taken place in between my sister/Jija and accused Buta Ram. I do not remember anything else about this case".
39. After conjoint reading of testimony of PW1 Jai Prakash, PW6 Om Prakash and PW8 Prem Prakash, there appears to be major contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the witnesses and mainly their testimony appears to be based on hearsay evidence. There is inherent contradictions in their statements made to the police as compared to their testimony recorded in chief regarding the harassment and torture, financial transaction, quarrel or use of defamatory statement against the deceased Amita Singh. The statement of the witnesses recording during examination in chief is only the improved version as compared to their earlier statement given to the police. The prosecution failed to answer the question as to when the deceased committed suicide by burning and from where the blood came on the walls and the floors of the house. The testimony of these witnesses is contrary to the testimony of PW3 Ct. Sukhram Pal and PW4 SI Azad Singh, who claimed that they had inspected the spot minutely and taken the photographs; did not State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.52/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 observe or find the footsteps or fingerprints; the dead bodies were completely burnt and were not identifiable. There is no reference in the testimony of PW3 and PW4 regarding the presence of any blood at the spot or regarding the pasting of the note on the roof of the temple as claimed by PW1 Jai Prakash and PW6 Om Prakash though they claimed to have checked the spot minutely after the incident. There is also inherent contradiction in the testimony of PW1 Jai Prakash and PW6 Om Prakash regarding making call to their Jija and sister as PW1 Jai Prakash claimed that he called Rajender Prasad but found his phone switched off and thereafter, went to their matrimonial home in an auto. In view of the testimony of PW1, it is established that he did not try to contact deceased Amita Singh whereas the claim of PW6 on the basis of statement of PW1 Jai Prakash is contrary that PW1 Jai Prakash tried to contact both on telephone. The version of the PWs even regarding alleged demand of increase amount in circle rate is inconsistent and clear improvement from their previous statements and they have been duly confronted with the same. As a matter of fact the crossexamination of the each witnesses shows that their examination in chief is full of materials improvement. Even as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the last State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.53/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 complaint between the parties relates back to twothree years of the incident and there is no evidence regarding any quarrel, taunting, harassment or humiliation to the deceased persons by the accused. The deceased persons committed suicide and there is no material on record to show that just before the time of the incident, the accused persons instigated them leading to their suicide.
40. The ratio of the judgment reported as Devender Singh V. State of Haryana, IX (2006) SLT 639 is applicable in the facts of the case wherein it has been observed that the purported demand should have direct nexus or immediate cause to commission of suicide by the deceased, otherwise the same will not amount to abetment of suicide. Reliance is also placed on the judgment reported as Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Senger v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2002 (2) RCR (Crl.) 687 (SC) in this respect..
41. A perusal of the statements of the witnesses established that the allegations against the accused persons regarding demand of extra money, quarrel on the issue of parking, threat and use of defamatory State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.54/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 statements for deceased Amita Singh remained unproved as none of these witnesses has seen or heard any such incident and their testimony is based merely on hearsay. The witnesses failed to disclose the details and material particulars particulars i.e. date, time and month of the incident and their testimony in this respect is vague and general in nature. Thus, there is nothing in their evidence on record to suggest that the suicide of the deceased was abetted by the accused persons. As observed, there are material contradictions in the testimony of PW1, PW6 and PW8 regarding the material facts of harassment and torture by the accused persons to the deceased persons. PW1 claimed that suicide note Ex.P2 was handed over in the envelope alongwith Rs.25000/ and the contents of the envelope was not disclosed to him on the pretext that it is a letter to be handed over to Bank Manager. Interestingly, the name of the Bank Manager to whom the envelope was to be handed over or the account where the amount was to be deposited by the PW1 on the instruction of the deceased is not disclosed. The question is asked as to when the deceased persons decided to end their life and executed the suicide note Ex.P2 in the envelope handed over to PW1, what was the reason to hand over Rs.25000/ to deposit in the loan amount in the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.55/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 account which remained undisclosed. Further question may be asked as to when they have already given the suicide note Ex.P2 to PW1, what was the reason or necessity to write the suicide note on the wall of the temple. The presence of the blood at the spot despite the death being caused by burning is also the question not answered by the prosecution during trial.Moreover the presence of the blood is not noted by the PW3 and PW4 i.e. the members of the crime team who visited to the spot on the first occasion and claimed that they have minutely inspected the spot. PW1 himself admitted that during his meeting all the deceased persons were normal when he left them at 09:30 pm. No incident after leaving of the spot by PW1 and of night is brought to the notice by the prosecution. The question therefore arises as then overnight within hours what changed the mind of the deceased persons to take such a step and end their life. PW1 nowhere deposed regarding any conduct of the accused persons which was discussed in his last meeting with respect to the harassment, torture, humiliation, court cases or any act against the deceased. The testimony of PW1, PW6 and PW8 appears to be inconsistent and also contrary to the claim of each other and therefore, the same needs to be examined with caution.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.56/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 This court is guided in view of the decision in Badam Singh v. State of MP (2003) 12 SCC 792, wherein following observations were made:
"The mere fact that the witnesses are consistent in what they say is not a sure guarantee of their truthfulness. The witnesses are subjected to crossexamination to bring out facts which may persuade a Court to hold, that though consistent, their evidence is not acceptable for any other reason. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the conduct of the witnesses is such that it renders the case of the prosecution doubtful or incredible, or that their presence at the place of occurrence as eye witnesses is suspect, the Court may reject their evidence."
42. In view of the fact that the allegations against the accused persons are not substantiated by the PW1, PW6 and PW8 and is also based on material improvements, this court does not find itself to rely upon the same. Reliance is placed on Ashok Vishnu Davare v. State of Maharashtra, II (2004) SLT 2004 wherein it has been observed that if glaring material improvements are there in the statements of the witnesses, the same affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case and it is not safe to base conviction thereon.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.57/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
43. It is vehemently argued on behalf of the prosecution that the testimony of the witnesses, who turned hostile, can also be relied and the testimony of the PW1, PW6 and PW8 are sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons. It is argued that evidence of a hostile witness is not effaced simply for the reason that the witness has not supported the prosecution. Such evidence can be relied upon to the extent it is consistent to the case of the prosecution.
44. I have considered the arguments by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and gone through the crossexamination of the witness.
In State v. Sonu Panjabi (2014) 146 DRJ 37, Hon'ble Delhi High Court disapproved the aforesaid manner of recording the cross examination of a hostile prosecution witness by the public prosecutor. The court observed as under: "78. Section 142 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (EA) states that leading questions may not be put in examinationinchief except with permission of the Court. As noted above, the learned APP sought permission of the trial Court under Section 142 of the EA to put leading questions and permission was declined. The learned AAP did not seek permission of the trial Court to declare PW27 hostile and to crossexamine her. This was an important aspect of the matter since the record in fact showed that the APP maintained at this stage that "the witness has substantially deposed the incident but she is forgetting the details". Therefore, from the point of view of the APP, the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.58/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 witness had not turned hostile and that is why he sought to ask leading questions under Section 142 EA.
79. Section 154 of the EA talks of permission being granted by the court in its discretion to the party who calls a witness, in this case the prosecution, to put questions to such a witness 'which might be put in crossexamination by the adverse party".
In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration 1976 Cri LJ 295, the Supreme Court observed that the words "hostile" and "adverse" in fact restrict the discretion of the court "and that it is to be liberally exercised whenever the court from the witnesses' demeanour, temper, attitude, bearing, or the tenor and tendency of his answers, or from a perusal of his previous inconsistent statement, or otherwise, thinks that the grant of such permission is expedient to extract the truth and to do justice." The Supreme Court in Sat Paul drew a distinction between the English law and the Indian law and observed that "faultiness of the memory in the case of such a witness would be another object of crossexamining and contradicting him by a party calling the witness". However, the Supreme Court did not dispense with the requirement of the party having to seek permission of the Court to put leading questions in the crossexamination of such witness. In Sri. Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa (1976) 4 SCC 233, the Supreme Court explained in what circumstances Section 154 EA could be invoked by the prosecution: "10..... Thus it is clear that before a witness can be declared hostile and the party examining the witness is allowed to crossexamine him, there must be some material to show that the witness is not speaking the truth or has exhibited an element of hostility to the party for whom he is deposing. Merely because a witness in an unguarded moment speaks the truth which may not suit the prosecution or which may be favourable to the accused, the discretion to allow the party concerned to crossexamine its own witnesses cannot be allowed. In other words a witness should be regarded as adverse and liable to be crossexamined by the party calling him only when the Court is satisfied that the witness bears hostile animus against the party for whom he is deposing or that he does not appear to be willing to tell the truth. In order to ascertain the intention of the witness or his conduct, the judge State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.59/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 concerned may look into the statements made by the witness before the Investigating Officer or the previous authorities to find out as to whether or not there is any indication of the witness making a statement inconsistent on a most material point with the one which he gave before the previous authorities. The Court must, however, distinguish between a statement made by the witness by way of an unfriendly act and one which lets out the truth without any hostile intention."
(emphasis supplied)
81. The above position was reiterated in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 as under:
"Section 142 requires that leading question cannot be put to the witness in examinationinchief or in reexamination except with the permission of the Court. The Court can, however, permit leading question as to the matters which are introductory or undisputed or which have, in its opinion, already been sufficiently proved. Section 154 authorises the Court in its discretion to permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in crossexamination by the adverse party. The Courts are, therefore, under a legal obligation to exercise the discretion vesting in them in a judicious manner by proper application of mind and keeping in view the attending circumstances. Permission for crossexamination in terms of Section 154 of the Evidence Act cannot and should not be granted at the mere asking of the party calling the witness."
82. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala 1993 Supp (3) SCC 745 : AIR 1993 SC 1892, in the context of Section 142 EA the Supreme Court held that the prosecution should not allowed to put leading questions so as to lead the witness to say that what the prosecution intends. The Court observed:
"The attention of the witness cannot be directed in Chief examination to the subject of the enquiry/trial. The Court may permit leading question to draw the attention of the witness which cannot otherwise by called to the matter under enquiry, trial or investigation. The discretion of the court must only be controlled towards that end but a question which suggest to the witness, the answer the prosecutor expects must not be allowed unless the witness, with the permission of the court, is declared hostile and crossexamination is State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.60/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 directed thereafter in that behalf. Therefore, as soon as the witness has been conducted to the material portion of his examination, it is generally the duty of the prosecutor to ask the witness to state the facts or to give his own account of the matter making him to speak as to what he had seen. The prosecutor will not be allowed to frame his questions in such a manner that the witness by answering merely "yes" or "no" will give the evidence which the prosecutor wishes to elicit. The witness must account for what he himself had seen. Sections 145 and 154 of the Evidence Act are intended to provide for cases to contradict the previous statement of the witnesses called by the prosecution. Sections 143 and 154 provides the right to crossexamination of the witnesses by the adverse party even by leading questions to contradict answers given by the witnesses or to test the veracity or to drag the truth of the statement made by him. Therein the adverse party is entitled to put leading questions but Section 142 does not give such power to the prosecutor to put leading questions on the material part of the evidence which the witnesses intends to speak against the accused and the prosecutor shall not be allowed to frame questions in such a manner which the witness by answering merely yes or no but he shall be directed to give evidence which he witnessed." (emphasis supplied)
83. Before proceeding to examine the position in the case at hand, the law explained in the above decisions of the Supreme Court may be summarized thus:
(i) Under Section 142 EA, the permission by the Court to a party to put leading questions to its witness has to be liberally exercised where the court thinks that the grant of such permission is expedient to extract the truth and to do justice.
(ii) Under Section 142 EA, the Court can permit leading question as to the matters which are introductory or undisputed or which have, in its opinion, already been sufficiently proved. However, Section 142 EA does not give power to the prosecutor to put leading questions on the material part of the evidence. The prosecutor shall not be allowed to frame questions in such a manner which the witness can answer merely by stating yes or no but he shall be directed to give evidence which he witnessed.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.61/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
(iii) Section 154 EA gives discretion to the Court to permit the person calling a witness to put any question to him which might be put in crossexamination by the adverse party. However, such permission for crossexamination cannot and should not be granted at the mere asking of the party calling the witness.
(iv) For the purposes of Section 154 EA, a witness should be regarded as adverse and liable to be crossexamined by the party calling him "only when the Court is satisfied that the witness bears hostile animus against the party for whom he is deposing or that he does not appear to be willing to tell the truth."
The said judgment was relied upon in judgment titled Umesh Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi 2017 SCC Online Del 11490. Para 25 of the said judgment is reproduced as under: "25. It may be recalled that the Addl. PP was permitted to cross examine PW9 only because he was, in his examinationinchief, resiling from the statement given by him previously to the police. The transcript of evidence thereafter had to record the fact that a particular sentence in the previous statement (Ex.PW9/B) was shown to the witness and asked whether in fact he had stated so earlier. The answer to such question in the affirmative or negative had to be then recorded. Instead, the transcript shows that PW9 simply agreed to all the suggestions given to him by the Addl. PP and his answers were recorded as his positive statements rather than a response to whether he had said so in his previous statement."
45. In light of the aforesaid pronouncements, the positive statements made by PW1, PW6 and PW8 in response to the leading questions put to them by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor on material aspects, cannot be heavily relied upon. Moreover, as established from the cross State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.62/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 examinations of the witnesses, they have not seen any such incident nor were present at the time of incident. The net result is that there is absolutely no evidence to show that any time prior to the death of the deceased, the accused persons incited the deceased which led to the commission of their suicide.
46. The prosecution relied mainly upon the suicide note Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A to prove that deceased persons committed suicide due to the quarrel, humiliation, harassment and torture caused by the accused persons.
47. PW16 SI Jasbir Singh has filed the FSL report Ex.PW16/B and FSL report dated 03.01.2014 regarding the documents alongwith the applications Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/C respectively.
48. PW17 Ms. Monika, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Biology), FSL Rohini, Delhi has examined the six parcels with exhibits and marked them as Ex.1 to Ex.6 on 15.10.2013 vide detailed report (Biology) Ex.PW9/0 and detailed report (serological) Ex.PW17/A. As deposed State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.63/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 blood was detected on all the exhibits. The witness was not cross examined by the accused persons.
49. PW18 Amit Rawat, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL Rohini has chemically examined the seven parcels with exhibits and marked them as Ex.1 to Ex.7 on 15.10.2013 vide detailed report Ex.PW16/B. The witness deposed that Ex.6 and Ex.7 found to contain kerosene oil; Ex.1 found to contain residue of kerosene and residue of kerosene/diesel/petrol could not be detected on Ex.2 to Ex.5. The witness was not crossexamined by the accused persons.
50. PW8 Prem Prakash on 15.04.2013 handed over the copy of documents as mentioned above which were seized by the police vide seizure memos Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/M. As the witness has not supported the prosecution case during his examination, he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and his deposition is as under "It is correct that on 15.04.2013, I identified that the suicide note written on the wall of the temple on 3rd floor is in the handwriting of my Jija Rajender and my sister Amita. It is correct that I had identified that the handwriting of suicide note which was handed over to my brother Jai Prakash was in the handwriting of Rajender and it State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.64/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 bears signatures of my sister Amita as well as of my Jija Rajender. The suicide note is already Ex.P2 on which I identified the handwriting and signatures of Rajender at point B and Amita at point A. At this stage, photograph Ex.A34 is shown to the witness who identified that it is the photograph of wall with the writing of Jija and sister where they have written the suicide note. It is correct that due to lapse of time I could not tell all this factors earlier".
It is noted that the photographs of the alleged suicide note written on the wall of the temple were not taken in the presence of any of the witnesses i.e. PW1, PW6 and PW8 and neither Ex.P2 nor Ex.P2A has been written in their presence. Infact, these witnesses deposed nothing regarding the document Ex.P2A. PW1 and PW8 claimed that these suicide notes i.e. Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A have been written by the deceased Rajender Kumar Saxena and signed by Amita Singh. I have gone through the testimony of both the witnesses and also the relevant provision i.e. Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. None of these witnesses had seen the author of the documents writing the same. Reference is made to the explanation of Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that when a court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.65/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact. The explanation to the Section provides that a person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. In the testimony of none of these witnesses either it is deposed or claimed that they are well acquainted with the handwriting of deceased persons i.e. Rajender Prasad Saxena and Amita Singh or they have seen them writing and signing in ordinary course of business or received documents in answer to any correspondence. The provisions of Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act does not apply to the witnesses to prove their competency for identifying the signatures of deceased Rajender Saxena and Amita Singh. Admittedly, Ex.P2 and Ex.PW2A were not written in the presence of PW1, PW6 or PW8 nor the photograph Ex.P34 was taken in the presence of these witnesses.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.66/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
51. PW8 Prem Prakash during crossexamination has admitted that his first statement in this case was recored on 06.08.2013 i.e. after more than two months of the incident. It is relevant to note that the statement of the PW8 Prem Prakash was not recorded by the police even when he handed over the above referred documents during investigation and the reason for non recording of his statement is not explained or noted by the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the judgment Harbir Singh v. Sheeshpal & Ors. (2016) SCC 418, whereby Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. It was further observed that delay in recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., although those witnesses were or could be available for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, would cast a doubt upon the prosecution case.
52. It is reiterated that PW8 Prem Prakash was controverted with his statement made to the police Ex.PW8/N as compared to his examination in chief which appears to be improved version. The witness State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.67/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 has admitted that facts deposed in his statement recorded by the police regarding increase in the circle rate and demand of more money by the accused persons, quarrel of accused persons with deceased, their litigations and police complaints, action by the police on the complaints of the deceased persons against the accused and incidents of their torture etc. are not stated to the police while recording his statement Ex.PW8/N. Even the documents stated to be handed over to the police during investigation as claimed by the investigating agency is not referred in his statement Ex.PW8/N and the answer to this question remained unanswered. Admittedly, the witness PW8 Prem Prakash is not the signatory of any of the documents as deposed by him nor any of these documents have been executed in his presence. He admitted during crossexamination that "the documents in respect of purchase of the house in question by my Jija from the accused persons, the documents were never executed in my presence. It is also correct that I am not a witness to any of the documents including the money receipt".
xxxxxx "I did not tell the police in my first statement that suicide note written on the wall of the temple on 3rd floor which is in the handwriting of my sister and Jija. It is also correct that I did State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.68/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 not identify the aforesaid writing and signatures of my sister and Jija on that day before the police".
It is relevant to note that above referred documents are the documents on the basis of which the prosecution has made endeavour to prove the suicide note Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A considering these documents as admitted signatures and handwriting of Rajender Saxena and Amita Singh.
53. PW9 SI Rampal deposed regarding the seized documents and their examination by FSL. He deposed during crossexamination that he did not make any inquiry from the persons present at the spot or the neighbours regarding the incident; no eye witness was found at the spot; the main door of the house was found to be broken at the time when he reached at the spot and he did not inspect the spot on his first visit i.e. in the morning. It is further deposed that no chance print/fingerprints were observed/lifted by him or the FSL team from the main door of the house which was in broken condition. The witness admitted that the blood marks were found on the main door wall and on the grill of the second floor of the house where the dead bodies were found and the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.69/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 complainant did not make any statement against the accused persons on his first visit at the spot. The witness further deposed that no eye witness was found at that time who had seen accused persons entering or leaving the house of the deceased. It is reiterated that the presence of the blood stains is not explain by the prosecution. Admittedly, none of the neighbors or witness present at the spot have been cited or examined as a witness in this case. The most important evidence i.e. regarding presence of PW1 with the deceased persons in the night or his call details record is not obtained during investigation. PW9 SI Rampal admitted that he did not collect the CDR of deceased and PWs Jai Prakash and Prem Prakash to know whether they had talked to each other prior to 06.04.2013. PW9 admitted that no bank official was examined by him in this case to verify the fact of deposit of Rs.25000/ which was handed over to the PW1 by the deceased at night. As regards the collection of the documents and its examination, it is relevant to note that his deposition during crossexamination as under: "I can not admit or deny whether it is possible that the complainant Jai Prakash took the signatures of deceased Rajender Saxena and his deceased sister Amita Singh on that blank stamp papers or he himself committed the said incident. I did not interrogate the complainant Jai Prakash as suspect as he was the only person who was last seen in the State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.70/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 company of the deceased. I did not conduct the body inspection of the complainant in this case. I also did not obtain the blood sample of the complainant in this case".
xxxxxx "I did not cite or examine the Bank Manager of PNB and SBBJ Bank in this case. It is correct that the documents i.e. four letters of Amita Food Industries addressed to Bank Manager, PNB, Jhatikara, Delhi110043 seized vide memo Ex.PW8/A were handed over to me by the brother of deceased Amita and not by the concerned Bank Manager. I do not remember whether I verified from the concerned Bank Manager regarding the authenticity of these documents. I also did not verify whether the said four letters were actually received by the Branch Manager or not.
xxxxxx "I did not verify the rent agreement dated 24.10.2008 executed between deceased Amita Singh and Smt. Nisha Gupta. I also did not record the statement of Smt. Nisha Gupta or cite her as a witness in this regard".
xxxxxx "I did not verify the rent agreement dated 14.10.2009 executed between deceased Amita Singh and Shyam Lal Malik. I also did not record the statement of Shyam Lal Malik or cite him as a witness in this regard. I did not examine or cite the Ahlmads of concerned courts where the civil suits and complaints cases filed by the deceased were pending to authenticate the said cases".
54. On 07.10.2013, PW19 Sh. Virender Singh, Assistant Director (Document), FSL Rohini received and examined one parcel containing the photocopy of suicide note having writing/signatures marked Q1 and Q3, seven cheques of different banks regarding admitted signatures Mark A1 to Mark A13, application form for seeking loan (running into four State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.71/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 pages) having admitted signatures Mark A14 to A18, account opening form (running into eight pages) having admitted signatures Mark A19 to A25, photocopy of PAN card having admitted signatures Mark A26, Form C having admitted signatures Mark A27, statement of bill of mobile having admitted signatures Mark A28, rent agreement (running into two pages) having admitted signatures Mark A29 and A30, rent agreement (running into two pages) having admitted signatures Mark A31, letter head of Anit Foods Industries dated 13.09.2012, 14.09.2012, 18.09.2012 and 11.10.2012 having admitted signatures of Anita at Mark A32, A33, A34 and A35 respectively and also having admitted handwriting on each page Mark as A36, A37, A38 and A39 and two photographs (enlarged) taken at the scene of crime having writing/signatures Mark as Q2, Q2/1, Q4 and Q5 in my presence. The admitted writings/signatures Mark A1 to A35 of Smt. Anita Singh and A36 to A39 of Sh. Rajender Saxena. The witness opined vide report Ex.PW9/Q that the person who wrote the red enclosed writings stamped and marked A36 to A39 also wrote the red enclosed writings/signatures similarly stamped and marked Q1 & Q2; the person who wrote the red enclosed writings stamped and marked A1 to A35 also wrote the red State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.72/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 enclosed writings/signatures similarly stamped and marked Q3 & Q4 and the remaining documents that it was not possible to express any opinion on the red enclosed writings/signatures stamped and marked Q2/1 and Q5 on the basis of material at hand. The witness further deposed that the opinion has been expressed on the xerox document i.e. Q1 and Q3 based upon the assumption that it represent its original correctly. The witness also deposed that the other above said documents (running into 26 pages) are Mark PW19/A1 to Mark PW19/A26 and the photographs are Ex.PW19/A1 and Ex.PW19/A2.
55. As admitted by the PW9 SI Rampal, the original suicide note was not sent to the FSL for expert opinion. PW19 also admitted that he only received the photocopy of suicide note and documents having admitted signatures; he expressed his opinion only on the xerox documents upon the assumption that it represent its original correctly. The witness PW19 was crossexamined at length by the defence and admitted that he did not examine the original suicide note and the photocopy was supplied to him for examination; the original suicide note was not asked for; his statement was not recorded by the police while he State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.73/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 visited the spot. The witness further deposed that "it is correct that my opinion is based upon the examination of the signatures/writing either from the photocopy of the alleged suicide note or from the photographs taken from the wall but I also examined the alleged suicide note (writing/signatures) available on the wall at the time of visiting on the scene of crime.
xxxxxxxx It is stated that the photostate document hides some parameters of handwriting examination"
56. DW2 Sh. Deepak Jain, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert was examined by the accused to examine the questioned signatures of the deceased on the suicide note and his opinion is contrary to the opinion of PW19. DW2 also admitted during crossexamination that proper opinion is not possible on the examination of photocopy. The reason for not sending the original suicide note for examination to the FSL alongwith seized documents stated to be containing admitted signatures is not explained. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act contains that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence whereas Section 64 required that documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned i.e. detailed in Section 65 of the Act. It is noted that in this case the original suicide State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.74/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 note Ex.P2 was available with the prosecution and the conditions of Section 65 for leading secondary evidence does not arise at all but the original suicide note Ex.P2 was not sent to FSL for opinion.
57. The report of the FSL Ex.PW9/Q is not supported with the oral testimony of the material witnesses i.e. PW1 Jai Prakash, PW6 Om Prakash and PW8 Prem Prakash examined by the prosecution. With regard to the evidenciary value of the medical evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment titled as Balvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Crl. A. 1115/2010) decided on 19.02.2019, has specified that oral evidence always has supremacy over medical evidence as the latter can only be considered as opinionative in nature. Relevant part of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below:
"26. It is well settled that the oral evidence has to get primacy since medical evidence is basically opinionative. In Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and others (2003) 12 SCC 606, the Supreme Court held as under: "17. So far as the alleged variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as is claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony , then only in a given case the court has to draw adverse inference."
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.75/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 The same principle was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another (1988) 4 SCC 302, where the Supreme Court held "that eye witnesses" account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility".
In view of the above, the FSL report Ex.PW9/Q and the testimony of PW1 Jai Prakash and PW8 Prem Prakash do not correlate the version of the prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the suicide note Ex.P2 and Ex.P2A being written by deceased Rajender Singh and Amita Singh.
58. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ude Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC Online SC 924 observed as under "38 In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a poof 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 behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of the 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 State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.76/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in a commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
39. 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 abovereferred, 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 fourcorners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the selfesteem and selfrespect 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 or 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.
40. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so for a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.77/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set ups, education etc. Even the response to the illaction of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, selfconfidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances."
59. For the prosecution to prove an offence under Section 306 IPC, it is essential that instigation proximate in time to the death is proved. Clearly in terms of the law laid down something more than mere apprehension of the deceased was necessary. There is no conduct attributable to the accused persons to show that the accused persons by their action instigated the deceased persons to commit suicide. Further perusal of the evidence shows that apart from mere allegation no material had come to record that accused persons harassed, abused, quarreled, humiliated, threatened or tortured the deceased. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that there was mere dispute regarding the property and litigation between the parties. The ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case for the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC. PW1 Jai Prakash, PW6 Om Prakash and PW8 Prem Prakash are not the eye witnesses of any incident and there State vs. Buta Ram & Ors.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.78/80 S. C. No.56200/2016 testimony is mainly based on hearsay. There is no direct evidence in respect of the allegations levelled against the accused persons in this case. As deposed by PW8 Prem Prakash as well, the matter was compromised between the parties and the allegations levelled by PW1, PW6 and PW8 are merely vague and not specific / sufficient enough to prove the allegations against the accused persons. Taking the totality of materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased persons who alone and none is responsible for their death.
60. In view of the aforesaid discussions and evidence on record, this court does not find any live link between the acts or conduct of the accused persons and the suicide committed by the deceased. The testimony of the witnesses do not substantiate the commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC by the accused persons. Thus, the accused persons namely Usha Rani and Sukhdev are hereby acquitted of the charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC against them.
FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.79/80 S. C. No.56200/2016
61. Personal bond in terms of Section 437A CrPC already furnished on behalf of the accused persons shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. The previous sureties of the accused persons are discharged. Their documents, if any, retained on record be released to them against acknowledgement.
62. Case properties are confiscated to State. If no appeal is preferred by the prosecution against the acquittal of the accused persons within the prescribed period of limitation, the case properties be disposed off as per rules.
63. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by Gorakh Nath Gorakh Nath Pandey Pandey Date: 2019.09.07 16:27:49 +0530 Announced in the open court (Gorakh Nath Pandey) on 04.09.2019 Addl. Sessions JudgeFTC, (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. State vs. Buta Ram & Ors. FIR No.179/2013, PS Uttam Nagar U/s 306/34 IPC Page No.80/80