Delhi District Court
State vs Hasina on 27 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT010093812016
CNR No. DLWT01-009381-2016
Sessions Case No. 58251/2016
FIR No. 268/2009
PS Uttam Nagar
Under Section 306/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Hasina
W/o Sh. Sobrati
R/o A-2, Gali No.1,
Sainik Enclave, Vikas Nagar,
PS Ranhola, Delhi.
2. Apsana
W/o Mohd. Rafiq Seffy
R/o A-6, Gali No.1, Sainik Enclave,
Vikas Nagar, PS Ranhola,
Delhi.
Date of Institution 20.11.2013
Date of Committal 02.12.2016
Charge framed Under Section 306/34 IPC against both the
accused persons.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 1 of 50
State v. Hasina & Anr.
Date of conclusion of final 22.07.2024
arguments and reserving Judgment
Date of Pronouncement of 27.07.2024
Judgment
Final Judgment Both the accused persons
namely Hasina and Apsana
are convicted of the Charge
u/s 306/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts :
1. Both the accused persons namely Hasina and Apsana have been facing trial for Charge under Sections 306/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') for humiliating Mr. Deepak and creating such circumstances that he was compelled to commit suicide by hanging himself with the ceiling fan in the evening of 24.05.2009 in between 03:00 PM and 06:30 PM at H.No. C-3, Gali No.1, Sainik Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, after having left a suicide note naming both the accused persons.
Registration of FIR and Investigation conducted :
2. As per the prosecution case, on 25.08.2009, Order of the Court of Ms. Shelly Arora, the then Ld.MM, West, THC, Delhi in CC No. 392/4/09, u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was received in the PS Uttam Nagar, vide which directions were given to the SHO PS Uttam Nagar to register and investigate the case u/s 306/34 IPC against Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 2 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
both the accused persons. Accordingly, FIR u/s 306/34 IPC was registered in PS Uttam Nagar and the same was assigned to ASI Surat Singh. However prior to this, on receipt of DD no. 25B dated 24.05.2009, the postmortem examination of deceased Deepak S/o Raj Singh R/o C-3, Gali No.1, Sainik Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi was conducted vide PM No. 555/09 and thereafter, the dead body of deceased Deepak was handed over to his family. The doctor had mentioned the cause of death of deceased Deepak as (i) Asphyxia from antemortem ligature hanging (ii) All the injuries as antemortem and same in duration and (iii) the manner of death as suicidal.
3. During investigation, one suicide note of deceased Deepak was found on the spot wherein he has mentioned that "मेरा नाम मोनू हैl मैं राधा से बहुत प्यार करता हूँ l मैंने उसको अपने घर बुलाया था तो गली वालों ने मुझसे कहा कि इसको जान से मार दो l राधा की कोई गलती नहीं है l उसे पहले बुलाया था l मेरा मौत के जिम्मेदार मेरे पड़ोसी है जिनका नाम हसीना और अपसाना है मेरी मौत इनकी से हुई हैl राधा को परेशान मत करना l राधा अपना ध्यान रखना मैं जा रहा हूँ l मेरे मरने के बात अपना ध्यान रखना l जब तक इन पड़ौसियों को सजा नहीं मिलेगी जब तक मेरी आत्मा को शान्ती नहीं मिलेगी".
4. Thereafter, the said suicide note and the chunni with which the deceased had committed suicide were taken into possession vide seizure memo. The said suicide notice was sent to the FSL, Rohini, Delhi for handwriting expert opinion. Thereafter, during further investigation, both the abovesaid accused persons namely Hasina and Apsana were interrogated by W/ASI Sushma, who disclosed Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 3 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
that mother of the girl Radha came to their house and stated that her daughter is confined by Deepak @ Monu in his house and she requested them for help. Statements of witnesses namely Jaimala Sharma, Kumari Reshma, Zarina who are the neighbours of the deceased, mother of girl Radha namely Smt. Kiran and sister of deceased namely Jyoti @ Preeti were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed without FSL result for the offence u/s 306/34 IPC against both the accused persons before the concerned Court. However, during trial, FSL result through supplementary charge-sheet was filed before the Ld.MM on 30.10.2017 and thereafter, the same was committed to this Court.
Charge:
5. Charge for the offences punishable under Sections 306/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons namely Hasina and Apsana by the Ld. Predecessor Court on 18.05.2018, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Prosecution evidence:
6. To prove its case against the accused persons, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses, that is, PW-1 Sh. Anil Kumar (brother- in-law (Jija) of deceased), PW-2 Smt. Kiranwati (mother of deceased), PW-3 Sh.Raj Singh (father of deceased), PW-4 Ms.Jyoti Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 4 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
@ Preeti (sister of deceased), PW-5 HC Vinod Kumar (duty officer), PW-6 retired SI Surat Singh (1st Investigating Officer), PW-7 retired SI Daya Kishan (2nd Investigating Officer), PW-8 Smt. Jaimala Sharma (Public witness), PW-9 Insp. Govind Singh (witness of investigation) and PW-10 Ms. Kanika Chawla (Scientific Assistant, FSL, Rohini). The relevant portion of their testimony is discussed in the following paragraphs.
7. PW-1 Sh. Anil Kumar is brother-in-law of deceased, who had deposed that he did not remember the date, month or year of the incident due to lapse of long time. However, it was summer season and about 9 years have been passed. On that day he along with his wife Jyoti went to his in-laws house situated at House No. 3, Vikas Nagar during Noon hours. The main door of the house was bolted from inside. There was another gate/entrance on the back side of the house, so they checked the same. However, it was also found bolted from inside. They knocked the door but no one had opened the door. He went to the roof of the house adjacent to the house of his in-laws and found that the gate of the staircase was lying open. He entered in the house of his in- laws and found that Deepak was hanging with the help of chunni tied to the ceiling fan on one end and wrapped on his neck. His wife also entered the house and saw the condition of her brother Deepak. They immediately pulled down Deepak after removing the chunni to check whether Deepak was alive or dead. A doctor was called from the nearby area to check Deepak. The doctor Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 5 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
came and after checking, he declared Deepak as Dead. At that time, his parents-in-law were not there, as they had gone to Haryana. After about 20-25 minutes, his parents-in-law also reached. Some neighbours gathered at the spot. Police was informed by his father- in-law.
7.1. He further deposed that police official reached at the spot. Police took search of the deceased. One suicide note was recovered from the pocket of his wearing clothes. In that suicide note, Deepak had levelled allegations against two ladies namely Hasina and Apsana. He mentioned in the suicide note that he was committing suicide as these ladies made him humiliated ( शर्मिंदा किया). The witness has correctly identified the copy of suicide note. He has also correctly identified the certified copy of suicide note proved as Ex.PW-1/A. He has also correctly identified both the accused persons before the court and deposed that these accused persons reside in the neighbourhood of his parents-in-law.
8. PW-2 Smt. Kiranwati is mother of the deceased, who has deposed that the deceased was aged about 18 years at the time of his death. She did not remember the date, month or year of the incident due to lapse of long time. However, it was summer season and about 9 years have been passed. On that day, she alongwith her husband and her younger son Ravi went to Kurushetra, Haryana for getting admission of Ravi in some course. At that time, her son Deepak was alone in the house. At about 3 PM, she received phone call of her Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 6 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
neighbour Sh. Kallu who informed about the incident. They reached at about 05.30/06:00 PM at their house. She found gathering of about 500 people near her house. Her daughter Jyoti and her husband Anil Kumar were present in the house. Dead body of Deepak was lying on the floor. She came to know that Deepak had committed suicide by hanging himself. Her husband made call to the police. Police reached at the spot and recorded her statement proved as Ex. PW-2/A.
9. PW- 3 Sh. Raj Singh is father of deceased. He has deposed that on 23.5.2016, he alongwith his wife namely Kiranwati, his younger brother Chatar Singh and his son Ravi Kumar went to Kurukshetra, Haryana for admission of Ravi. They left Delhi on 23.5.2016 in the morning by train. On 24.5.2016, at about 02.30 PM, when he alongwith his above said family members was returning to Delhi by train from Kurukshetra, he received telephonic call of his daughter Jyoti who informed that his elder son Deepak had committed suicide. They reached Delhi in the evening at about 06.30 PM. When they reached their house, they saw that dead body of Deepak was already brought down by his daughter Jyoti and her husband Anil. He made call at 100 number. Police reached his house after about half an hour. Police officials made search of wearing clothes of his son. One Suicide Note was recovered from the possession of deceased Deepak. He identified the hand writing of his son Deepak.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 7 of 509.1. The witness has proved the certified copy of Suicide Note as Ex.PW-1/A and deposed that this is the copy of Suicide Note which was recovered from the possession of his son Deepak. His son Deepak was also known by the name of Monu. At that time, neighbours were already present at the spot. He was informed by his daughter Jyoti as well as neighbours that the girl 'Radha' (her name is mentioned in the Suicide Note) was called to his house by Reshma, daughter of accused Hasina. He knows both the accused Hasina and Apsana as they reside in his neighborhood. He was also informed that both the accused raised noise ( Hangama) and started hurling abuses to his son due to which several persons gathered. On this issue his son had called Reshma and due to shame his son committed suicide. Both the accused also bolted the door of his house when Radha was inside his house with his son Deepak. 9.2. He has further deposed that on the same day i.e. on 24.5.2009 police obtained his signatures on one blank paper. He had not made any statement before the police on that day. This witness has identified his signatures on the statement Mark PW-3/A dated 24.05.2009 however, deposed that he did not make this statement as he was under shock due to sudden death of his son. He has further deposed that the police recorded said statement of their own. He has further deposed that the police removed the dead body of his son from the spot and took the same for postmortem examination to DDU Hospital. After the postmortem examination, he received the Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 8 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
dead body of his son on 25.05.2009. He visited the police station for registration of FIR. However, he was told that the case was registered as the proceedings were conducted after the death of his son. Police misrepresented him that they are investigating the case. However, no case was registered by the police. He never stated before the police that he did not have any suspicion over any one. When police did not take any action then he filed a complaint case before the Court. The witness has also proved the complaint U/s 200 Cr.P.C annexed in the file as Ex.PW-3/A. He deposed to have filed this complaint as both the accused persons are responsible for death of his son.
10. PW-4 Ms. Jyoti @ Preeti is sister of deceased and she has deposed that deceased Deepak @ Monu was her younger brother. She knows both the accused namely Hasina and Apsana as they reside in the neighbourhood of her parents. Her matrimonial house is at a walking distance of about 10 minutes from her parent's house. She does not remember the date, month and year of the incident due to lapse of long time as about 8-9 years have been passed since the incident. It was summer season. On that day, at about 8:00 A.M. or 9:00 A.M., her brother Deepak came to her house. It was the day of "Amawasya". She alongwith her brother came to her mother's house. On that day, her parents and her other younger brother Ravi had gone to Kurukshetra for securing the admission of her brother, Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 9 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
she stayed there for about one hour and then, returned to her house. Her brother Deepak remained there in his house. 10.1. She has further deposed that in the afternoon at about 3:00 P.M., either son or daughter of accused Hasina came to her house and informed that Deepak was present in his house alongwith one girl and Hasina had called her there. She alongwith the child of accused Hasina came to Deepak's house. She found crowd outside the house and the public persons were making noise. Both the accused Hasina and Apsana were also present outside the house. The door of the house was bolted from outside. She knocked the door but Deepak did not open the door. There was another entrance of the house situated at the backside of the house. She went on the backside of the house and knocked the door then one girl namely Radha opened the door and came out. She knew Radha as she used to resides in the neighbourhood of her parent's house. She became angry and scolded Radha as to why she had come to their house in the absence of her parents. Radha informed her that Sitara (daughter of accused Hasina) had come to her house and told her that Jyoti had called her to her house. (राधा ने मुझे बताया कि मैं राधा को अपने घर बुला रही हूँ). She went to the house of Radha alongwith her and met her mother. Mother of Radha informed that daughter of accused Hasina had called Radha at the pretext that she was being called by her/ Jyoti. In the meantime, both the accused Hasina and Apsana also came to the house of Radha and hurled abuses to Radha and her Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 10 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
mother. Both the accused gave beatings to Radha as well as to her mother. She tried to pacify the matter by asking both the accused persons to talk with her parents on this issue. Then, both the accused left the place and she came to her parent's house where her brother Deepak was present. She talked to her brother Deepak as to how Radha came there. Deepak informed that both the accused persons somehow called Radha on the pretext that she was being called by Jyoti and when Radha came, they closed the door and bolted from outside and then started making noise. She made call to her husband Anil and informed him about the incident and asked him to come there. Both the accused were making noise by standing outside her parent's house, they were uttering very bad language for her brother Deepak. She requested both the accused persons to be calm and whatever grievances they have; they should talk to her parents but both the accused did not stop and they were continuously making noise by using very filthy language. When she was requesting the accused persons after coming out from the house, her brother Deepak had closed the door and bolted from inside. She asked Deepak to open the door but he did not open and told her that he would open the door only when their parents would return. One of her neighbour had made call to her parents and informed them about the incident. During that call she also spoke to her mother and her mother told her to return to her matrimonial house as Deepak was not opening the door. She was also informed that they were on the Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 11 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
way and would reach after some time. Thereafter, she left the spot and returned to her matrimonial house.
10.2. Her husband returned to the house and then she alongwith him again went to her parent's house after about 15-20 minutes. At that time, the door of her parent's house was closed and bolted from inside. She knocked the door several times and called her brother Deepak, however. Deepak did not give any reply. She thought that Deepak was in anger and for this reason he was not opening the door, as he was being insulted. Then, she went towards the backside of the house and called his name but no one gave reply from inside the house. There was a window on the backside of her parent's house and when they saw from the window, they observed that the door of the staircase was lying open. The house of accused Hasina was situated adjacent to her parent's house. She went to the roof of accused Hasina and then came to the roof of her parent's house. When she went at the ground floor, she found that her brother Deepak was hanging with the ceiling fan. She shouted and her husband also came there. Her husband immediately opened the main door of the house and the body of Deepak was brought down. She called one doctor residing in the neighbourhood. The doctor came and checked her brother Deepak and declared him as dead. 10.3. She has further deposed that her parents came after about one hour and then police were called. The police officials came after some time. At that time also, both the accused persons were blaming Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 12 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
the deceased Deepak by stating that "इसे तो मरना ही था". Police made inquiry and took search of the wearing clothes of Deepak. One suicide note was found in the wearing clothes of her brother. However, this witness could not identify the said suicide note Ex.PW-1/A due to lapse of time. She has further deposed that Reshma is the daughter of accused Hasina.
10.4. After seeking permission of the Court, the Ld. Prosecutor had put some leading questions to the witness to which she has replied that Sitara and Reshma are two daughters of accused Hasina. She failed to remember as to whether it was Reshma or any other child of accused Hasina who had come to her house to call her. She failed to know whether it was Sitara or Reshma who called Radha from her house on the pretext that she was calling her. However stated that it was one of the daughters of accused Hasina who had called Radha.
11. PW-5 HC Vinod Kumar has deposed that on 29.08.2009, at 08:20 PM, he received rukka through SHO PS Uttam Nagar and on the basis of the same, he got registered the FIR of this case bearing no. 268/2009 u/s 306/34 IPC through the computer operator, proved as Ex.PW-5/A. He made his endorsement proved as Ex.PW-5/B on the rukka. After registration of the FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to ASI Surat Singh for investigation. He has also issued certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, proved as Ex. PW-5/C. Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 13 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
12. PW-6 retired SI Surat Singh is the first Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on 24.05.2009, DD no. 55, proved as Ex.PW- 6/A regarding PCR call was assigned to him and after receiving the said DD entry, he alongwith Ct. Jaiveer reached at gali no. 01, Sainik Enclave, Vikas Nagar, Delhi and found public gathering. He reached to the house no. C-3 in gali no. 01 and found that the said house was locked from inside. He had made inquiry from the public persons present there and on inquiry, it was revealed that brother-in- law and sister of the deceased were residing nearby and they had also reached there. They had entered into the said house from the roof of adjacent house and opened the gate from inside. He had entered into the house and found that there was a room situated near the gate and deceased was found hanging with the ceiling fan with the help of chunri in the said room. The body of deceased was removed from the ceiling fan with the help of family members and public persons. The body of the deceased was checked and it was found having a suicide note in the pocket of his wearing pants. The said suicide note and chunri (ligature material) was taken into possession through seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-6/B and Ex.PW-6/C respectively. The copy of said suicide note is proved as Ex.PW-1/A. The body of deceased was sent to DDU hospital, where he was declared brought dead. body was preserved in mortuary. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and recorded the statement of Anil Kumar, proved as Ex.PW6/D, statement of Ms. Preeti, proved Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 14 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
as Ex.PW6/E, statement of Sh. Raj Singh, proved as Mark PW-3/A and statement of Ms. Kiranvati, proved as Ex.PW2/A. He had made arrival entry vide DD no. 69B dated 24.05.2009, proved as Ex.PW6/F. 12.1. He has further deposed that on 25.05.2009, he had recorded the identification statement of Raj Singh and Anil Kumar since they identified the body of the deceased vide identification statement, proved as Ex.PW6/G. Thereafter the postmortem of deceased was got conducted. After the PM, the body of the deceased was handed over to his father. Thereafter he returned to the PS and informed the SHO and DD no.55 B was kept pending. In the meantime, father of the deceased Raj Singh moved an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the concerned Ld. MM. On the said application, Ld. MM had ordered for registration of FIR. On the directions of Ld. MM in application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, FIR in the present case was registered. Copy of complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C, is proved as Ex.PW-6/H (colly.) and application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C was received in PS. SHO made endorsement on the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C which is proved as Ex.PW6/I and same was assigned to him. He had collected the copy of FIR, proved as Ex.PW5/A. 12.2. He has further deposed that after registration of FIR, he met the father of the deceased Raj Singh and he had joined the investigation. He had made inquiry from him and he had handed Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 15 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
over him one notebook/copy stated to be the admitted handwriting of deceased. He had taken the same into possession through seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW6/J. The suicide note and notebook/copy was sent to FSL for comparison of handwriting. He had recorded the statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C on relevant dates. He had also made interrogation from accused Hasina and Apsana, whom he had correctly identified before the Court. He had also collected PM report. In the meantime, he was transferred from PS Uttam Nagar and he had handed over case file to MHC(R). This witness has correctly identified the case property i.e. Chunni as Ex. P.1 before the Court.
13. PW-7 retired SI Daya Kishan is the second Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on 28.05.2012, further investigation of this case was assigned to him from previous IO/SI Shravan Kumar. During inspection of the file, it was revealed that the FSL result was pending. DO letters and reminders were sent to FSL, Rohini for providing FSL result. On 05.05.2013, he recorded statement of Jaimala Sharma u/s 161 Cr.P.C. On 28.08.2013, he had recorded the statement of Ms. Zarina and Ms. Jyoti. He had also recorded statement of Ms. Reshma and Ms. Kiran u/s 161 Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, he had prepared the charge-sheet and till then FSL result was pending. This witness has correctly identified both the accused persons before the Court.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 16 of 5014. PW-8 Smt. Jaimala Sharma is a public witness and she has deposed that she does not remember the exact date of incident however, on that day, she was ill and had come from the hospital after taking treatment. She was inside her house. She does not know what had happened outside. She had not come out from her house and had not seen what happened outside. She has correctly identified both the accused persons before the Court. 14.1. This witness was declared hostile and after seeking permission of the Court, Ld. Prosecutor has cross-examined the witness, wherein she has denied the suggestions put to her by the Ld. Prosecutor and deposed that she could not tell whether the date of incident was 24.05.2009 or not. She deposed that she was at her house and had not heard any noise coming from the street as she was under influence of medicines since she had come from the hospital after surgery of removal of her uterus. However, she failed to produce any medical document to show that her abovesaid surgery was conducted in the hospital. She has also admitted that Ram Singh is her neighbour who was residing in front of her house, however, she did not remember his house number. She has further deposed that Kumhar colony is situated at a five minutes walking distance from her abovesaid house. She further deposed that the person who died in the present incident was Monu @ Deepak S/o Sh. Raj Singh. Raj Singh was having two sons namely Monu and Ravi and two daughters namely Sonu and Preeti. Deepak was called Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 17 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
in the locality as Monu. She has admitted that she came to know that deceased Deepak @ Monu had committed suicide. Some of her neighbours had told the same to her however, she does not remember the name of that neighbour. She failed to remember whether police officials had recorded her statement in this regard or not. She has further deposed that she is having good relations with the accused persons and have visiting terms. She used to visit them in each and every function.
15. PW-9 Insp. Govind Singh has deposed that in the present case, the main charge sheet was filed by the IO/ASI Daya Kishan and during the course of trial, the Ld. Trial Court had directed to collect the questioned documents and admitted documents on the basis of which FSL, Rohini had given its report vide FSL No. 2011/D-5552 dated 17.01.2024 as the original questioned documents and admitted documents were missing from the judicial file. In pursuance of directions issued by the Ld. Court dated 10.08.2017 and 18.09.2017, he had filed a supplementary charge- sheet before the Court alongwith the certified copy of questioned documents and admitted documents after obtaining the same from FSL, Rohini. The said supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 30.10.2017 before the concerned Ld.MM and subsequently, it was committed to the concerned Court.
15.1. He has further deposed that for obtaining certified FSL result and questioned and admitted documents, he had approached the Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 18 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
Director, FSL, Rohini and moved an application for the same. On his application, attested copy of FSL result, proved as Ex.PW-9/B and photocopy of questioned documents, proved as Ex.PW-1/A and admitted documents, Mark PW-9/X (colly.) alongwith forwarding letter, proved as Ex.PW-9/A were provided by the FSL, Rohini.
16. PW-10 Ms. Kanika Chawla, Scientific Assistant, FSL, Rohini, Delhi has deposed that she has been deputed by the Director/HOD, FSL, Rohini to appear and to depose on behalf of Dr.Jiju P.V., Sr.Scientific Officer (document), FSL, Rohini, Delhi as he had left the services of the department. She is aware about his handwriting and signatures of Dr. Jiju P.V. as she had worked under him and seen him writing and signing during her official capacity. She has further deposed that the FSL result having FSL number FSL 2011/D- 5552 dated 17.01.2014 was prepared by Dr. Jiju P.V. after examining questioned documents Q.1 and Q.2, as Ex.PW-1/A and admitted documents A.1 to A.4, as Mark PW-9/X (colly.). After examining questioned documents and admitted documents, Dr. Jiju P.V. had opined that the person who wrote the writings in the red enclosed portion stamped and mark A.1 to A.4 also wrote the writing in red enclosed portion similarly stamped and Mark Q1. The detail report of Dr. Jiju P.V. is proved as Ex.PW-9/B.
17. On 19.09.2018, the Ld. Prosecutor had dropped the witness namely Reshma listed at srl.no. 10 in the list of witnesses as she is Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 19 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
the daughter of accused Hasina and there was apprehension that she will not support the case of the prosecution.
18. On 08.12.2023, both the accused persons had admitted the execution/preparation of PM report no. 55509 dated 25.05.2009 of DDU hospital prepared by Dr. Santosh Kumar regarding the postmortem of deceased Deepak s/o Sh. Raj Singh u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said PM report of deceased Deepak was exhibited as Ex.PX1.
19. Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 08.12.2023 on submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Statements of accused persons Under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
20. After prosecution evidence was over, on 12.02.2024, both the accused persons namely Hasina and Apsana were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein they reiterated their innocence. Both the accused persons stated that no suicide note was recovered from the deceased. This is false and frivolous story created by the family members of deceased with the connivance of Kallu, Sawar Singh and other persons. Suicide note was manipulated by mentioning their names later on by the family members of the deceased, if suicide note was recovered by the police official from the possession of deceased then why police did not conduct inquiry from them on the basis of the contents of the said suicide note on the Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 20 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
day of incident. Contents of the suicide note written by deceased and the same was manipulated later on with the connivance of abovesaid persons by the father of deceased only to falsely implicate them in the present FIR. Police officials had not arrested them after knowing the contents of the suicide note as they knew the real facts of this case. As and when the IO conducted the inquiry/investigation from them, they joined them to prove their innocence. The inquiry/investigation of the present FIR was conducted under the pressure of the family of deceased. IO failed to conduct the fair investigation as per law and falsely implicated them under the pressure of family members of deceased.
21. Both the accused persons chose to lead defence evidence however, they could not produce the same and hence, DE was ordered to be closed on 01.05.2024.
Final Arguments:
22. The Court has heard the final arguments as advanced by Mr. M.A.Khan, Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Sh.R.P.Sarwan, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for both the accused persons and has gone through the entire material available on record.
Arguments address on behalf of the Prosecution by Mr.M.A.Khan, Ld.Addl. P.P. for the State :
23. It is submitted by the Ld.Addl. P.P. for the State that the present matter is based on the scientific evidence and the ocular Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 21 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
testimony of PW Jyoti who is eye witness of the entire incident. The prosecution has proved the present case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. He has further argued that the deceased was of young age and due to the abetment by accused persons, he had committed suicide. He has further argued that the handwriting of the suicide note was matched with the handwriting of deceased and the said suicide note was corroborated with the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 who are brother in law and sister of deceased, who reached the spot first and pull down the deceased from the ceiling fan. Thus, it is stated by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that both the accused persons be convicted for the offence for which they have been charged.
Arguments on behalf of both the accused persons:
24. It is argued by Sh.R.P.Sarwan, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for both the accused persons that there was no abetment being done by the accused persons to the deceased for committing suicide and they only gathered with the crowd at the spot being neighbours. He has further argued that there is material contradiction in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 vis-a-vis the testimony of first IO/PW-6 which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and which also clearly shows that the case has been got registered against the accused persons as an after thought. He has further argued that in the initial complaint, the accused persons were not named. He has further argued that there is Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 22 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
no date mentioned on Q1 which is the alleged suicide note written by the deceased. He has further argued that nothing has come on record to show such a level of abetment that was sufficient to commit suicide. He has further argued that Radha has not been examined and her details were not available with the prosecution. He has further argued that version of PW-4 does not make offence u/s 306 IPC against the accused persons. He has further argued that nothing has been proved against both the accused persons except the suicide note which is not sufficient to convict both the accused persons. He has further argued that many improvements have been made in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-4 and moreover, PW-8 who is neighbour of deceased turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has also argued that both the accused persons are innocent and nothing has been proved on record against them for finding them guilty for the alleged offence.
25. In rebuttal, it is argued by the Ld. Prosecutor that the suicide note was never disputed by the defence at any point of time during their cross-examination as no question to any prosecution witness regarding the date on the suicide note was put by the defence. It is further argued that only these two accused persons out of all neighbours have been named by the deceased in the suicide note soon before the commission of suicide and no enmity against them for writing so has been putforth by the defence.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 23 of 50Relevant law :
26. Both the accused persons are facing trial in the present matter only for charge u/s 306/34 IPC, hence, it is relevant to discuss the provision of Law laid down under Section 306 IPC, which reads as under :
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.
27. The entire Law on the aforesaid section has been discussed in detail by the the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as M.Vijaykumar v. State of Tamil Nadu in SLP (Crl.) No. 4684 of 2019, wherein it is held that :
"4. There can be no doubt with respect to the position that to bring home a charge under Section 306, IPC it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish :
a) That the victim of the offence committed suicide;
b) That the accused abetted the commission of suicide;
c) That the abetment attracts the ingredients under Section 107 IPC.
5. Section 107 IPC defines the offence of abetment and it is constituted by any of the following:-
(a) instigation to commit the offence; or
(b) engaging in conspiracy to commit it; or
(c) intentionally aiding a person to commit it.Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 24 of 50
6. Now, bearing in mind the scope and ambit of Section 107, IPC and its co-relation with Section 306, IPC and the decision of this Court in M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 and in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628 we will proceed to consider the case. After referring to an earlier decision in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 16 SCC 605, this Court in M. Mohan's case (supra) analysed the meaning of the word 'abetment' and held in paragraphs 44 and 45 thus:-
"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 25 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
7. In the decision in Madan Mohan Singh's case (supra) this Court was considering an appeal against dismissal of a petition filed under Section 482 Cr. PC to quash the FIR registered against the appellant therein under different Sections of IPC including Section 306, IPC. For the purpose of this case, it is only referred to paragraph 12 therein, insofar as it is relevant which reads thus:-
"In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC........."
8. Thus, an analysis of the provisions under Section 306, IPC with reference to abetment as contemplated under Section 107, IPC and the decisions in M. Mohan's case (supra) and Madan Mohan Singh's case (supra) would reveal that while considering the question as to whether a person can be convicted under Section 306, IPC or whether a conviction thereunder could be sustained, one has to consider the mens rea of the accused/convict to Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 26 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
bring about suicide of the victim. Needless to say, that it requires an active act or direct act which led the victim to commit suicide seeing no option; and in other words, the act must have been of such a degree intending to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.
xxxxxxxxxx
15. In the contextual situation, in view of the analysis of the provisions under Section 306, IPC and the decisions referred to supra, we will also have to consider what is mens rea? 'Mens rea' means a guilty mind. As a general rule, every crime requires a mental element, the nature of which, will depend upon definition of the particular crime in question. Although it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term 'mens rea' as the circumstance to determine the existence of mens rea depends upon the ingredients constituting the particular offence and the expression used in the definition of the particular offence to constitute such offence. It is only appropriate to refer to Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol-11, Para- 10), going by the same:
"...it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term 'mens rea', concepts such as those of intention, recklessness and knowledge which commonly used as the basis for criminal liability and in some respects, it may be said to be fundamental to it. Generally, subject to both Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 27 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
qualification and exception, a person is not to be made criminally liable for serious crimes unless he intends to cause or foresees that he will probably cause or at the lowest he may cause the elements which constitute a crime in question."
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also elaborated the Law for offence u/s 306 IPC in case titled as Kamlakar v. State of Karnatka, Crl.Appeal No. 1485 of 2011, wherein it has been held that :
"8.2. Section 306 IPC penalizes abetment of commission of suicide. To charge someone under this Section, the prosecution must prove that the accused played a role in the suicide. Specifically, the accused's actions must align with one of the three criteria detailed in Section 107 IPC. This means the accused either encouraged the individual to take their life, conspired with others to ensure the person committed suicide, or acted in a way (or failed to act) which directly resulted in the person's suicide.
xxxxxxxx 8.5.The essential ingredients which are to be meted out in order to bring a case under Section 306 IPC were also discussed in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal in the following paragraphs:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 28 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
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 part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
29. In case titled as Prabhu v. The State rep. By the Inspector of Police & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 39981/2022), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India further elaborated the Law on the point as it is held that :
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 29 of 50State v. Hasina & Anr.
10. On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this Court's previous judgments discussing the elements of Section 306 IPC, the following principles emerge:
10.1 Where the words uttered are casual in nature and which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarreling people, and nothing serious is expected to follow from the same, the same would not amount to abetment of suicide.
[Swami Prahaladdas v. State of M.P 1995 Supp.
(3) SCC 438, Paragraph 3; Sanju v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371, Paragraph 12].
10.2 In order to constitute 'instigation', it must be shown that 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 option except to commit suicide. The words uttered by the accused must be suggestive of the consequence [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20] 10.3 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. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, Paragraph 20] Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 30 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
10.4 There must be direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must be shown to have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 1214] 10.5 The accused must have intended or known that the deceased would commit suicide because of his actions or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628] Appreciation of evidence :
30. The case of the prosecution putforth against the accused persons namely Hasina and Apsana for which they are facing trial after framing of charge u/s 306/34 IPC is that in the evening of 24.05.2009, between 03:00 PM to 06:30 PM, outside H.No. C-3, Gali No.1, Sainik Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had humiliated the deceased Deepak @ Monu and created such circumstances compelling him to commit suicide by hanging himself with the ceiling fan by tying Chunni after having left a suicide note naming both of them.
31. The evidence led by the prosecution is of two types i.e. ocular evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 and documentary evidence in nature of suicide note written by the deceased soon before committing suicide Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 31 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
corroborated with scientific evidence in form of opinion of handwriting expert.
32. Dealing with both type of evidence one by one and starting with ocular evidence proved on record. The prime witness of the prosecution is sister of the deceased namely Ms. Jyoti examined as PW-4 and she has deposed to have witnessed the entire incident from starting till the end on the date of incident.
Testimony of Prime prosecution witness/PW-4 Ms.Jyoti:
33. PW-4 Ms. Jyoti has deposed on oath that on the day of incident, her parents alongwith her younger brother Ravi had gone to Kurukshetra, Haryana for securing admission of Ravi. She went to her parent's house in the morning alongwith Deepak after he visited her house in the morning around 08/09:00 AM. However, she returned to her matrimonial house after about an hour and her brother Deepak remained in his house.
34. In the afternoon, at about 03:00 PM, she went to her parent's house again as she was informed that her brother Deepak was present in the house with one girl and accused Hasina has called him. When she visited her parent's house, she found crowd had gathered outside the house and they were making noise. Both the accused persons were present outside the house and the door of the house was bolted from outside.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 32 of 5035. PW-4 then knocked the door but Deepak did not open the door, therefore, she went to the back side of the house towards other entrance and knocked the door, on which one girl namely Radha opened the door and came out. She knew Radha being one of the neighbour and scolded Radha being angry as to why she had come to their house in absence of her parents. Radha informed her that daughter of accused Hasina called her there on the pretext that she was called by PW-4. Thereafter, PW-4 went to the house of Radha alongwith her and met her mother, who stated the same as informed by Radha. In the meantime, both the accused persons also reached the house of Radha and hurled abuses to Radha and her mother. They also gave beatings to Radha and her mother. She somehow intervened and the accused persons left the said place.
36. Thereafter, PW-4 went to the house of her parents in order to meet her brother Deepak who also informed her that Radha was called by the accused persons on the pretext that she was called by PW-4 and when Radha came to their house, they closed the door, bolted it from outside and started making noise.
37. PW-4 immediately made a call to her husand Anil/PW-1 and informed him about the incident while asking him to come there. Both the accused persons meanwhile kept on making noise while standing outside her parent's house and also uttered filthy bad language for her brother Deepak. She tried to pacify both the accused persons and requested them to talk to her parents regarding Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 33 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
their grievance when they returned however, both the accused persons did not stop and continued making noise while using filthy language.
38. While she was requesting both the accused persons to maintain calm after coming outside from her parent's house, her brother Deepak had closed the door and bolted it from inside. She requested Deepak to open the door but he refused to open it till their parents return. One of their neighbours made a call to her parents and informed them about the incident and during the said call, she also spoke to her mother, who told her to return her matrimonial house since Deepak was not opening the door and they would reach home after some time. Accordingly, she left the spot and returned to her matrimonial home.
39. After 15-20 minutes, when her husband returned home, she went to her parent's house again alongwith him and found that the door of the house was still closed being bolted from inside. She knocked the door several times while calling her brother but he did not give any reply. Then she went towards the back side of the house and despite repeated calling, no reply was received from inside the house. On finding through window that the door of the staircase was lying open, she went to the roof of the adjoining house of accused Hasina and entered house of her parents.
40. On reaching ground floor of her parent's house, she found that her brother Deepak was hanging with the ceiling fan. She shouted Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 34 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
and her husband also came inside the house. Her husband immediately opened the main door of the house and body of Deepak was brought down. The doctor visited the spot and declared Deepak as dead.
41. Thereafter, her parents returned after about an hour and police was called. When police visited the spot, at that time also both the accused persons were blaming the deceased Deepak by stating "इसे तो मरना ही था". On search by the police, one suicide note was found from the wearing clothes of deceased Deepak. She also correctly identified both the accused persons being neighbours of her parents.
42. Despite lengthy cross-examination of PW-4, the defence was not able to demolish her stand or impeach her credit.
Testimonies of witnesses of res gestae:
43. PW-1 Sh. Anil Kumar, who is brother-in-law of deceased and husband of PW-4 Ms. Jyoti, has deposed that on the fateful day, he visited the house of his parents-in-law in the afternoon alongwith his wife/PW-4 Ms. Jyoti. However, the main door of the house was found bolted from inside and since there was another entrance on the back side of the house, so they went to check the same but it was also found bolted from inside. They knocked the door but none opened the same. He went to the roof of adjoining house and found that the door of the staircase was lying open. He entered the house of his in-laws and found that Deepak was hanging tied to a Chunni Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 35 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
with the ceiling fan. His wife also entered the house and saw the condition of her brother. They immediately brought down Deepak to check whether he is alive or dead, however, the doctor declared him dead on visit. After some time, his parents-in-law returned home and police was informed. Some neighbours had already gathered at the spot.
44. When police reached at the spot, they took search of the deceased during which, one suicide note was recovered from the pocket of wearing clothes of deceased Deepak. In the suicide note, deceased Deepak has levelled allegations against both the accused persons namely Hasina and Apsana by mentioning that he is committing suicide as these ladies humiliated him. PW-1 correctly identified certified copy of suicide note, proved as Ex.PW-1/A. He also correctly identified both the accused persons being neighbours of his parents-in-law.
45. PW-2 and PW-3, the parents of deceased Deepak have deposed that on the fateful day, they had gone to Kurukshetra, Haryana for getting admission of their son Ravi in some course alongwith their son Ravi. Therefore, their son Deepak was alone in the house. At about 03:00 PM, they received phone call from their neighbour Kallu who informed them about the incident and when they reached their house at about 05:30-06:00 PM, they found gathering of about 500 people outside their house. Their daughter Jyoti and her husband Anil Kumar i.e. PW-4 and PW-1 were present Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 36 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
in the house and dead body of their son Deepak was lying on the floor. They were informed that Deepak had committed suicide by hanging himself. Police reached the spot and recorded the statement of PW-2 Smt.Kiranvati proved as Ex.PW-2/A.
46. However, during the cross-examination of PW-2, she has stated specifically that she did not state to the police in her statement that she does not have any suspicion over anyone (confronted with statement proved as Ex.PW-2/A). She volunteered that police official himself wrote her statement since she was weeping at that time. She also volunteered that media persons were also present there.
47. The father of deceased PW-3 Sh.Raj Singh has also deposed that he made a call to the police and after the police reached the spot, they recovered one suicide note from the possession of his deceased son Deepak. He proved the certified copy of suicide note already exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A. He also stated that his son Deepak was also known by the name Monu. He also stated that on 24.05.2009, police obtained his signatures on one blank paper and he has not made any statement before the police that day since he was under shock due to sudden death of his son. The police recorded the said statement on their own.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 37 of 50Documentary evidence :
48. As per the story of the prosecution, when police visited the spot, a suicide note was found from the pocket of wearing clothes of deceased Deepak and the said recovery of the suicide note from possession of deceased has been proved on record by PW-1 Sh. Anil Kumar, PW-3 Sh. Raj Singh, PW-4 Smt.Jyoti and PW-6 retired SI Surat Singh by proving seizure memo of suicide note as Ex.PW-6/B.
49. The said suicide note was sent to FSL for opinion of handwriting expert and PW-10 Ms.Kanika Chawla, Scientific Assistant, FSL, Rohini, Delhi has proved the detailed report on the same prepared by Dr.Jiju P.V. as Ex.PW-9/B.
50. PW-10 has also deposed that the FSL result Ex.PW-9/B was prepared by Dr.Jiju P.V. after examining the questioned documents Q.1 and Q.2 and admitted documents A.1 to A.4 and as per his opinion, the person who wrote the writings in the red enclosed portion stamped and marked A.1 to A.4 also wrote the writing in red enclosed portion similarly stamped and mark Q.1.
51. Both the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. have stated that no suicide note was recovered by the police after the incident and the same has been manipulated by the family members of the deceased in order to falsely implicate them.
52. However, in view of the oral testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding its recovery and seizure from the pocket of wearing clothes of deceased soon after incident by the police and Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 38 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
more specifically the opinion of handwriting expert stating that the suicide note was written by the deceased Deepak proves the version of prosecution that the suicide note proved on record as Ex.PW-1/A was written by the deceased Deepak soon before committing suicide.
53. The suicide note is reproduced hereinafter:
"मेरा नाम मोनू हैl मैं राधा से बहुत प्यार करता हूँ l मैंने उसको अपने घर बुलाया था तो गली वालों ने मुझसे कहा कि इसको जान से मार दो l राधा की कोई गलती नहीं है l उसे पहले बुलाया था l मेरा मौत के जिम्मेदार मेरे पड़ोसी है जिनका नाम हसीना और अपसाना है मेरी मौत इनकी से हुई हैl राधा को परेशान मत करना l राधा अपना ध्यान रखना मैं जा रहा हूँ l मेरे मरने के बात अपना ध्यान रखना l जब तक इन पड़ौसियों को सजा नहीं मिलेगी जब तक मेरी आत्मा को शान्ती नहीं मिलेगी".
54. The aforesaid suicide note proved to have been written by deceased Deepak @ Monu clearly mentions the entire incident and the circumstances which compelled him to commit suicide.
55. It is pertinent to mention here that as per testimony of PW-9 Insp.Govind Singh, as per directions of the Court he had filed supplementary charge sheet in the present matter for bringing on record the certified copy of questioned and admitted documents obtained from FSL, Rohini, Delhi since the original questioned and admitted documents were missing from judicial file. He proved the forwarding letter to FSL, in this regard as Ex.PW-9/A and attested copy of FSL result as Ex.PW-9/B. Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 39 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
Essential Ingredients of Section 306 IPC to be proved by the prosecution in the present matter:
56. The prosecution has to prove two facts in the present matter to secure the conviction of accused persons u/s 306/34 IPC, which are as under :
a) That the victim of the offence committed suicide and
b) That the accused persons abetted the commission of the suicide by instigation in furtherance of their common intention. (As one of the mode of abetment as per section 107 IPC).
57. Now discussing the said facts one by one.
a) That the victim of the offence committed suicide:
As per the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-4, when they entered the house, the deceased Deepak was found hanging with aid of Chunni to the ceiling fan. They both pulled him down for his survival but he was declared dead by the doctor. The said ocular evidence has been well corroborated by the PM report bearing no. 55509 dated 25.05.2009 of DDU hospital prepared by Dr.Santosh Kumar proved as Ex.PX1. As per the said report, the cause of death was asphyxia from antemortem ligature hanging, all the injuries are Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 40 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
antemortem and same in duration and the manner of death is suicidal.
58. In view of aforesaid ocular and medical evidence, it is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide.
59. Now coming to the second fact which needs to be proved by the prosecution in the present matter i.e. b) That the accused persons abetted the commission of the suicide by instigation in furtherance of their common intention. (As one of the mode of abetment as per section 107 IPC).
60. As per the testimony of the prime witness of the prosecution PW-4 Ms. Jyoti, when she reached the spot she found the door of the house bolted from outside. Thereafter, the back door of the house was opened and Radha came out from the house, on asking from Ms. Radha and her mother, they both told her that Radha was called to the house of Deepak by daughter of accused Hasina on the pretext that she was called by PW-4 Jyoti. Deceased Deepak even told PW-4 that both the accused persons somehow managed to call Radha at their house on the pretext of being called by PW-4 Jyoti and when Radha came to their house, both the accused persons closed the door, bolted it from outside and started making noise.
61. PW-4 even stated that both the accused persons made ruckus outside their house and used extremely filthy language against her brother. She even emphatically deposed on oath that she tried to Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 41 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
pacify both the accused persons and told them to talk to her parents regarding their grievance but they did not stop and continued the commotion while abusing the deceased Deepak. Due to their act, her brother Deepak closed the door of the house and bolted from inside. Despite her asking to open the door, he did not open it and therefore, she left the spot and returned to her matrimonial house but when she returned after sometime, the door of the house was still locked from inside and despite knocking & calling, Deepak did not open the door. When she managed to go inside the house, she found her brother hanging from the ceiling fan.
62. These circumstances as explained by the prime witness of the prosecution in detail creates a picture that both the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention created commotion outside the house of the deceased to the extent which compelled Deepak to commit suicide finding no other option.
63. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. The mental state of health of deceased Deepak can be well understood by perusal of his suicide note Ex.PW-1/A, wherein he has specifically stated that the neighbours threatened to kill him and both the accused persons namely Hasina and Apsana are responsible for his death and name of both the accused persons have been specifically mentioned in the suicide note, which has been proved to be written by the deceased himself.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 42 of 5064. At this stage, reliance is placed upon the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001, SC 3837, wherein the Court has analysed different meanings of "instigation". The relevant para of the said judgment is reproduced herein:
"20. 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.
65. Reliance is also placed upon the Judgment titled as Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [(2009) 16 SCC 605 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 367], wherein the Hon'ble Suprement Court of India observed as under :
"Each person's suicidability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances".
66. Finding strength from the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country, this Court is of the view that the tolerance capacity of a youngster, who has just come out of his teenage is far more less than the tolerance capacity of a middle age and above person. Deceased Deepak who is stated to be 18 years of Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 43 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
age at the time of incident was not of that mature understanding to have dealt with the situation which was created by both the accused persons on the day of incident. The youngsters take things to their heart without analyzing the consequences and at this age, their self esteem/self respect is considered the most important thing on earth. The mental status of the deceased Deepak at the time of incident cannot be equated with an elder person who has gone through the ups and downs of life. At this age, love and affection towards opposite sex is paramount in ones life, which is clearly reflected in the suicide note written by deceased Deepak. From the suicide note, it is clearly, that he was compelled and brought in such a situation by the accused persons that he found no other option than committing suicide. The circumstances as deposed by prosecution witnesses were such that huge crowd had gathered outside his house led by both the accused persons and they were threatening him to kill. PW-2 has specifically said that when they reached their house, there was gathering of 500 persons. Such a huge number of persons who gathered on howling and shouting of both the accused persons become a mob and the deceased got scared from the mob and finding no other option to rescue himself, bolted himself from inside and committed suicide.
67. The mens rea for abetment of suicide is clear by the conduct of both the accused persons as they threatened Deepak to life as mentioned in the suicide note and it has been specifically deposed Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 44 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
on oath by PW-4 Ms. Jyoti that even after death of Deepak by committing suicide, both the accused persons stated that ' इसे तो मरना ही था'. This implies that both the accused persons were aware of the consequences of their direct act of creating pressure/instigation by them upon deceased Deepak by creating commotion and continuously using abusive and filthy language against him with threatenings, that too, when his parents were not at home and he being of very young age, was alone at home. Even the accused persons did not stop despite requests made by sister of Deepak and continued to harass and humiliate him due to which, he was constraint to commit suicide.
68. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved this fact also beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons abetted the commission of the suicide by instigation in furtherance of their common intention.
69. Undoubtedly, there are certain contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses however, they are minor contradictions in nature which are not fatal to the case of the prosecution at all, since any man is not expected to depose exactly on the lines on which the incident happened as human memory is short lived and no one can remember each and every minute detail.
70. Reliance is placed upon the case titled as Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra (2023) 6 S.C.R. 851 , wherein after relying upon the Judgments in cases tiled as Bharwada Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 45 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983SC
753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. Stateof UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012), it is held that :
'..........25. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:
"I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 46 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
\VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 47 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 48 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.
is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence..........'.
Final analysis:
71. It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to prove its case lies on the prosecution. Thus, in a criminal trial, the onus to prove the commission of offence by the accused is always upon the prosecution and the same never shifts upon the accused.
The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused persons had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
72. In the preceding paragraphs, it has been discussed in detail and held that both the essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 306 IPC has been duly proved by the prosecution in the present matter beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons.
Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 49 of 50Conclusion :
73. In view of above discussions & findings, accused Hasina and Apsana are hereby held guilty and accordingly, convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC. They be taken into custody, since the Imprisonment prescribed for Section 306 IPC is upto 10 years.
74. Let they be heard separately on the point of sentence.
75. Copy of the judgment be provided to the convicts or their respective Ld. Counsels free of cost. Digitally signed SHEFALI by SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date:
Pronounced in the open 2024.07.27
18:15:10 +0530
Court on 27.07.2024 (Shefali Barnala Tandon)
Additional Sessions Judge -05,
(West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi
It is certified that this Judgment contains 50 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by SHEFALI SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date:
2024.07.27 18:15:20 +0530 (Shefali Barnala Tandon) Additional Sessions Judge -05, (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 50 of 50 State v. Hasina & Anr.Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 51 of 50 Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 52 of 50 Case No. 58251/2016, FIR No. 268/2009 Page 53 of 50