Himachal Pradesh High Court
Savitri Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 March, 2018
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) Nos. 130 & 131 of 2018 Reserved on: 7.3.2018 .
Date of decision: 13.3.2018
1. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 130 of 2018 Savitri Devi. ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent
2. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 131 of 2018 Kamlesh Kumar. ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ...Respondent Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Shiv Pal Manhans, Additional Advocate General with Mr.R.R. Rahi and Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, Deputy Advocate Generals.
Inspector/SHO Sunil Kumar, P.S. Sadar, Mandi, present along with case record.
Vivek Singh Thakur Judge These petitions are being decided with common order as common question of law and fact is involved in these petitions.
2. Petitioners have filed these petitions for enlarging them on regular bail in case FIR No. 272 of 2017, dated 11.10.2017 under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, registered in Police Station Sadar, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
3. Investigating Officer has filed status report and has also produced record.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:54:55 :::HCHP 2 Cr.M.P(M) No. 130 of 2018
4. As per status report, on 11.10.2017, on the basis of statement statement of complainant Dalip Singh, recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., an FIR was registered, stating therein that complainant, is widower serving as .
Painter in Public Works Department at Mandi, was having his son Jai Ram, daughter-in-law Reeta (deceased) and grand-son Karan in his family. On 10.10.2017 he had sent his 3 years old grand-son Karan along with his daughter-in-law Reeta alias Anu (deceased) for his vaccination for dog bite and they had to catch Government bus at 8:00 A.M. But after some time, both of them returned to house, whereupon he asked the reason for that. His daughter-in-law was in anger and she kept quiet, but grand-son informed that they missed the bus. Complainant was in hurry to reach on duty at Mandi and thus left for Mandi. During day time, one Pandit Dina Nath serving with him as Bailder in his Department told him that his daughter-in-law (deceased) was beaten by Savitri and her son Kamlu (petitioners) near the Government bus. After reaching home at 6:15 P.M., he found that Reeta was not at home. His son, because of mental ailment, was bed ridden since about one year. On inquiry from grand-son, no information about deceased could be gathered. It is further stated that complainant had two houses and the family used to live in new house in village Marathu, whereas two storied old house is near Nalah. Despite searching deceased Reeta during night, she could not be found, but next morning at 7:00 A.M. when he reached old house in her search he found the room of upper story locked from inside. On peeping through window, he found his 22 years old daughter-in-law hanging with hook of the roof with her dupatta, whereupon he informed Gram Panchayat Pradhan Smt.Narvada. Thereafter police came and carried on proceedings after arrival of parental side of deceased Reeta. After opening the door with forcible push, during search of the room, one diary with led pencil was recovered lying on the tin box, wherein at page No. 2 a suicide note was found stating that wife of ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:54:55 :::HCHP 3 Cr.M.P(M) No. 130 of 2018 Ganga Ram and his son (petitioners Savitri Devi and Kamlu alias Kamlesh Kumar) are responsible for her death, who had beaten her in front of bus, full of passengers, when she on asking them to return our money and had called .
her lumpen (bigdi huyee i.e. rag). It was further stated by the complainant that he had advanced `4,000/- to Savitri wife of Ganga Ram (petitioner) at the time of marriage of her daughter, who was not returning the money since long and on asking to return the said money by his deceased daughter-in-law, both petitioners might have abused, insulted and beaten her whereupon feeling insulted, she has committed suicide. During investigation, finding prima facie complicity of the petitioners in committing a non-bailable offence under Section 306 IPC, they were arrested by Investigating Officer at 6:30 P.M. on 11.10.2017.
5. As per opinion of doctor, on the basis of post mortem and after receiving chemical analysis report from FSL, the deceased died due to asphyxia due to antimortem hanging in a case where no alcohol/poison detected in the viscera and blood sample of the deceased.
6. As per status report, on completion of challan, the same has been presented in the court on 8.12.2017 and is under consideration of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi-1. It is stated in status report that, after interrogating driver and conductor of the bus, it was found that incident in the morning of 10.10.2017 had taken place prior to arrival of the bus and during investigation admitted handwriting of deceased has been taken into possession and sent for comparison with the handwriting of the suicide note, to the State Forensic Laboratory, Junga, result whereof is still awaited and both the accused are in judicial custody since 13.10.2011. It is further stated that during investigation a letter was received from Gram Panchayat Pradhan Smt.Narbada with regard to an incident alleged to have taken place during night of 7.10.2017, but on inquiry from the concerned persons, referred ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:54:55 :::HCHP 4 Cr.M.P(M) No. 130 of 2018 in the said letter and recording their statements, none of them has expressed the knowledge of any such incident.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that there is .
no role of the petitioners in the commission of suicide by the deceased Reeta and the incident alleged to be cause of suicide, if even taken to have happened as alleged, is too remote to connect with suicide and complicity of petitioners is yet to be established and the petitioners have been implicated in the case only on the basis of possibility of incident as reason for suicide but without any concrete evidence and they are behind the bars since 11.10.2017 only for suspicion. Relying upon judgment of this Court in Jagmohan Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2016 (1) Him.L.R. 111, Champa Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2016(1) Him.L.R. 275, Varinder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2016(1) Him L.R. 614, Nirmala Devi Vs. State of H.P. 2016 (2) Him L.R. 879, Maya Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2016 (3) Him L.R. 1505 and also pronouncement of the Apex Court in Manoranjana Sinh & Gupta Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2017 (3) Him L.R. (SC) 1368, he has prayed for releasing the petitioners on bail.
8. For considering the issue of grant of bail, discretionary jurisdiction is to be exercised with care and caution by balancing the valuable rights and liberty of an individual viz-a-viz interest of society at large. Nature and gravity of offence is also one of relevant considerations and grant of bail is regulated to a large extent by the facts and circumstances of each particular case.
9. The challan against the petitioners has been presented under Section 306 I.P.C. for committing abatement of suicide. Abatement involves mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. In present case, on the basis of suicide note of the deceased, a single instance of abusing, beating and insulting in front of large number of ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:54:55 :::HCHP 5 Cr.M.P(M) No. 130 of 2018 persons, is being considered the basis for implicating the petitioners in commission of offence. No past history of any other such incident has been placed on record by the investigating agency before the Court and the issue .
of committing the suicide on account of an act of petitioners and happening of the alleged incident as well as sufficiency of the alleged incident to derive the deceased to commit suicide, is yet under consideration of the trial Court. On the basis of material placed on record, at the best, at this stage, can be concluded that prima facie there is evidence for suspecting involvement of petitioners in commission of suicide by deceased Reeta and such prima facie involvement is yet to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in the trial. It is not a case where petitioners have been found to be involved in harassing, abusing insulting or humiliating deceased in perpetuity either physically or mentally by their continuous act and conduct to force the deceased to commit suicide. It is true that some times, single instance can be sufficient cause to commit suicide. But the said proposition of prosecution is yet to be established.
10. Petitioners have approached this Court for grant of bail in the month of November, 2017, but the same was rejected on 10.11.2017 at that stage, keeping in view of stage of investigation at that time. Thereafter the bail application preferred by the petitioners has also been rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi on 24.1.2018.
11. Challan has been presented in the Court on 8.12.2017 and it appears from the status report that the case stands committed to the Sessions Court and is pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi for consideration. Now investigation, except receiving the report of handwriting expert from State Forensic Science Laboratory, is complete and the said report after receiving has been proposed to be presented in the Court with supplementary challan. There are changed circumstances as earlier rejection ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:54:55 :::HCHP 6 Cr.M.P(M) No. 130 of 2018 of the bail of the petitioners by this Court in the month of November, 2017, was on account of stage of in investigation at that time and now investigation is almost completed. Petitioners are behind the bars since about 4½ months.
.
One of the petitioners is woman and another, who is her son, has just completed his 18 years of age. Both are permanent local residents residing with their family in the same village Marathu. Their custodial investigation is also not required and nothing is to be recovered from them.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case in entirety and settled law of the land, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars at this stage and in my opinion, it is a fit case to enlarge her on bail, certainly subject to certain conditions.
13. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 272 of 2017, dated 11.10.2017, registered at police Station Sadar, Mandi, H.P. under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C, on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, with the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(ii) that the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses;
(iii) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required.
(iv) that the petitioners shall not misuse her liberty in any manner.
14. Learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No.HHC.VIG./Misc. Instructions/93-IV.7139 dated 18.03.2013.
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:54:55 :::HCHP 7 Cr.M.P(M) No. 130 of 2018
15. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.
.
Petitions stands disposed of.
Copy Dasti.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), th 13 March, 2018 Judge.
(KRS)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2018 23:54:55 :::HCHP