Delhi District Court
State vs Accused on 16 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL,ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI Unique Case I.D. No.02402R0552342006 SC NO.22/10 Date of Institution :29.03.2007 FIR No.190/04 Date of Argument :19.10.2012 PS Mandawali Date of Order :16.11.2012 U/S 306/34 IPC State Versus Accused 1. Vijay Sukhija S/o Sh. Kishan Lal R/o 20, Vigyan Vihar, Delhi. 2. Uttam Duggal S/o Sh. Khairati Lal Duggal R/o B-502, Double Storey, Brij Vihar, Ghaziabad, U.P. Shakarpur, Delhi. JUDGMENT
The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that at about 8.15 hours on 07.12.2001 an information was received at P.S. Mandawali that a person named Sanjay was got admitted in LBS Hospital as he had eaten something. Dr. Anupama Singh medically examined him and prepared MLC. SI Krishan Kumar arrived at the hospital. The doctor opined that patient was conscious.
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 1/46That information was recorded vide DD No. 8A on 07.12.2001 at P.S. Mandawali, Delhi. SI Krishan Kumar recorded statement of Sanjay vide DD No. 8A of even date. Another information was received from the hospital that that person named Sanjay was declared dead by doctor and DD No. 13A of even date was recorded. SI Krishan Kumar recorded inquest proceedings and during investigation a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased. English translation of suicide note is as under:
"To, SHO Sir, I had gone for duty to my office on date 5.12.2001 and I was called at the office about 2 O'clock and was scolded and was abused and was given many threats because our case was pending in the Labour Court and Labour Inspector instructed three times to the owner that he should not abuse and should not give any kind of threat to the employees. But they did not obeyed any of the instructions and I was called in the office and unparliamentary language was used against me and there in the office I was forced to sign the blank papers by the office accountant along with the owner and they kept on intimidating me for life and threatened to me, if you don't sign then I can get you killed by any notorious person by offering him Rs.20-25,000/- (by giving thousand rupees). Therefore, in view of the safety of my children I had to sign on the plain papers and there two staff members of the office were watching all this. There the owner Vijay Sakuja and accountant Uttam Duggal gave the plain paper and made me sign on it and our present staff Surender Kumar Diwedi and Kishan Kumar Gupta were watching all this by SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 2/46 standing outside their cabin because they were involved in the case and the following employees are involved in the case pending in the Labour Court for example Shri Gorakh Tiwari, Shri Surender Kumar, Shri Mahender Kumar Diwedi, Hukam Singh, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Sanjay Srivastava, Sushil Kumar Mishra, Deepak Pandey, Santosh Kumar, Sanjeev Kumar Srivastava, Prem Kumar Jha, Ram Kripal and two ladies sweeper employees are named in it.
My children are at Sasa Ram. There are my in-law. I told all these to my maternal uncle and he said that he will make them understand and when I received a phone call from him on 5.12.2001 at about 2 O'clock after his conversation at length with my uncle, he said to me that tum pani (ma chudwane) labur court mein gaye nahi to bahen ke loro madar chod apni ma chod vale like this number of other abuses were given to me and asked that what does your Mama do. Then I said that he is here only in C.G.V. Complex. He is in the police department. Then he sweared of his livelihood and in front of Goddess Mata which is kept in the basement of office cabin and said on oath that nothing will happen to you we are with you. For the same he gave me so much of tension that he got pain in the left side of the chest and was sent to Shanti Mukund Hospital with his son and got me the medicine. I had that medicine at that very point of time and I was sent to Hisar on 6th December, 2001 in that tension only for the duty and a big suitcase containing goods of the two parties and Rs.3600/- of Hisar Bill and one polybag on which word Hisar was written was also sent. All this was in big attache which is kept below. Because of all this tension I am ending my life and person responsible for my death are Vee Kay Traders (1) Mr. Vijay Sakhuja 20 Vigyan Vihar Yamuna Sports Complex, Delhi 92 (2) Uttam Duggal (Accountant) residing at Ghaziabad Brij Vihar. These two people are responsible for my death.
1. Vijay Sakhuja (Who is our owner)
2. Uttam Duggal (Who is our accountant) And my family and sister, brother-in-law or my neighbours SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 3/46 or landlord are not responsible for my death and they have nothing to do with this. Therefore, they should not be harassed in any manner and person responsible for my death is owner of the office and the accountant. And labour court case is pending against me.
And yours, sd/-
Sanjay Srivastava My union is Trade Brijlal Akhil Bhartiya Karamchari Trade Union (Regd) And my home is at Lucknow."
In the suicide note the deceased mentioned that his employer/owner of his company namely Vijay Sukhija and accountant Uttam Duggal were responsible for his death. Postmortem on the body was got conducted. The dead body of the deceased was released to his relative. It was detected in the postmortem that he had consumed aluminum phosphate. IO took into possession admitted handwriting of deceased and sent the suicide note and admitted writings to GEQD Shimla for comparison. A report was received that suicide note was written by the deceased. Accordingly, a case u/s 306/34 IPC was registered. IO prepared a charge sheet mentioning the name of Vijay Sukhija and Uttam Duggal in column no. 2 and reported that both these persons were not arrested as he could not find sufficient evidence against them. It was SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 4/46 requested to the court that appropriate order may be passed.
2. Ld. M.M. vide his order dated 09.3.2006 took the cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons. After supplying copies of charge sheet and documents to the accused persons, Ld. M.M. committed the case to the court of sessions as the offence punishable u/s 306/34 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. On committal, this case was assigned to this court.
3. My Ld. Predecessor vide his order dated 02.04.2007 opined that there was sufficient material on record to frame a charge against both the accused for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. Therefore, charge against both the accused for the said offence was framed and read over to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Order on charge was challenged before Hon'ble High Court vide Criminal Revision. The order of my Ld. Predecessor was upheld by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.10.2011 in Criminal Revision P. 414/2007.
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 5/465. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Dr. Anupama Singh of LBS Hospital as PW1; Ct. Rana Pratap as PW2; Deepika Srivastav, wife of deceased as PW3; Sh. Suresh Prasad Srivastav, father of deceased as PW4; Sh. Rajeev Kumar Srivastav, elder brother of deceased as PW5; SI Krishan Kumar as PW6; Sh. Sanjeev Srivastav, brother-in-law of deceased as PW7; HC Navratan Singh as PW8; HC Daya Nand as PW9; SI Manvender Singh as PW10; Dr. Rajiv Kapil, Consultant, Department of Medicine, LBS Hospital as PW11; Dr. L.C. Gupta, Specialist Forensic Medicine, Aruna Asif Govt. Hospital as PW12; Dr. B.A. Vaid, GEQD, CFSL, Shimla as PW13; HC Virender as PW14 and Sh. Priyankar Ghosh, CFSL, Gohati as PW15.
6. After closing of prosecution evidence, statements of both the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused admitted that Sh. Vijay Sukhija was owner of V.K. Traders and Sh. Uttam Duggal was working with it as accountant and deceased Sanjay Srivastav was working in the said company as Marketing Inspector on and prior to 07.12.2001. It was also admitted that brother-in-law of Sanjay Srivastav i.e. PW-7 Sh. Sanjeev Srivastav was also serving in that company and he continued to work even after death of Sanjay Srivastav. Both the accused persons either denied the remaining SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 6/46 evidence or expressed their ignorance about the same. Accused Vijay Sukhija pleaded that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He further explained that he used to give salary to his employees as per their qualifications and post. Deceased Sanjay was happy with him and handwriting of the suicide note EX.PW3/2 and letter EX.PW3/1 were fabricated subsequently. Accused Uttam Duggal also pleaded that he was innocent and he was falsely implicated and the suicide note and letter EX.PW3/2 and EX.PW3/1, respectively, were fabricated subsequently. Both the accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. After closing of evidence I have heard lengthy arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused persons. I also heard arguments of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused file.
8. On perusal of charge sheet and other documents, on examination and analyzing of evidence on record and on considering the arguments, I have formed my opinions and that are discussed herein below:
9. It would be appropriate to reproduced Section 107 & 306 of IPC which runs as under:
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 7/46"107 Abatement of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.-
A person, who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
306. Abatement of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
10. My attention goes to a case Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, AIR 1989 SC 378, wherein the apex Court observed that:
"Reading Section 306 and 107 together it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished under S.306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide. A plain reading of this provision shows that before a person can be convicted of abetting the suicide of any other person, it must be established that such other person committed suicide."
11. My attention goes to a case Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2008 (6) SCALE 192 wherein the SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 8/46 Supreme Court observed that:
"8. Abatement 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 it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC." [Emphasis supplied]
12. My attention goes to a case Prashant Manchanda v. Ltd. Governor of Delhi & Anr., 2007 [2] JCC 1227 wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"11. In order to attract Section 306 IPC, the person to abet commission of suicide must do an overt act or some act which instigates the victim to commit suicide. The act so performed must be the immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of Police had suspended the deceased Inspector committed suicide exactly after two years. The suspension was done by the Commissioner of Police as an official act which he was authorized to do under law. Every head of department is supposed to initiate disciplinary action against subordinates when commission or omission of such acts are brought to his notice which prima facie show dereliction of duty or mala fide actions." [Emphasis supplied]
13. My attention goes to a case wherein Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State, 2000(2) JCC 466 (Delhi) wherein the Delhi High Court observed that:
"The law on the subject, to my mind, is that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commissioning of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 9/46 compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime, intentionally aiding and, therefore, active complicity is the gist of offence of abatement under the third paragraph of Section 107, IPC, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175. It is, however, difficult to lay down the exact acts of commission or omission which amount to abatement depending upon facts of the each case but the principles have already been laid down in precedents." [Emphasis supplied]
14. In order to prove its case the prosecution has to prove the two ingredient of Section 306, firstly that Sanjay Srivastava committed suicide and secondly that both or either of the accused abated commission of the suicide by him. Let us examine the evidence on record to find out whether either or both of the accused committed offence of abatement of suicide punishable u/s 306 IPC?
Suicide by Sanjay Srivastava
15. PW1 on this aspect deposed that on 07.12.2001 a patient Sanjay Srivastava was brought in hospital at 8:10 a.m with alleged history of ingestion of some tablets. There was history of vomiting and gastric burn. He was conscious, pungent smell was coming out from his mouth.
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 10/46His pulse rate was 70 per minute. Blood pressure was 100/70, body temperature was normal. Pupils were of normal size and reacting to light. He was making complaint of vomiting and loose motion. There was absence of discharge from mouth and nostril. Stomach wash was done. Patient was referred to Senior Resident for management. She prepared MLC Ex.PW1/A which was signed by her.
16. PW11 Dr. Kapil, after seeing certificate of patient Sanjay Srivastava admitted in LBS Hospital on 07.12.2001 with alleged history of ingestion of ten tablets of sulphas, deposed that general condition of the patient was poor. Patient was treated with IV Fluids and injection dopamine and oxygen were given but with no response. General condition of the patient was deteriorated and in spite of the treatment he expired at 9:50 a.m. on 07.12.2001 in medicine department. Death summary of patient Sanjay Srivastava was prepared by Dr. Arjun Singh who was a Medical Specialist in his department. He proved the death summary as Ex.PW11/A and signature of Dr. Arjun at point A. He further deposed that death certificate Ex.PW11/B of Sanjay Srivastava was prepared by Dr. Rajeev Kapil. He also identified signatures of Dr. Rajeev Kapil at point A. SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 11/46
17. PW3 on this aspect deposed that on 07.12.2001 she received an information that her husband was serious and she should visit her matrimonial home at the earliest. She reached Delhi on 08.12.2001. She went to the house of her sister in law at West Vinod Nagar, Delhi where she found a crowd and on inquiry she came to know that her husband was no more. She made complaint Ex.PW3/A after the death of her husband.
18. PW4 on this aspect deposed that Sanjay Srivastava was his eldest son. He was informed that his son was admitted in LBS Hospital. On reaching Delhi, he came to know that his son expired at about 9 a.m. He identified the dead body of his son vide Ex.PW4/A.
19. PW5 on this aspect deposed that Sanjay Srivastava was his elder brother. On 07.12.2001, he received an information at Lucknow that Sanjay Srivastava was unwell. They immediately rushed to Delhi and on reaching Delhi they came to know that Sh. Sanjay Srivastava was no more. They went to LBS hospital where they identified dead body of Sanjay Srivastava. His statement Ex. PW5/A was recorded. Doctor gave a suicide note to his father. He proved the suicide note as Ex.PW3/B. SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 12/46
20. PW6 on this aspect deposed that on 07.12.2001 he was posted at P.S. Sangam Vihar. On that day DD No.13- A Ex.PW6/A was assigned to him for taking action in the matter. He also came to know that Sanjay had died in the hospital. He arrived at the hospital. Dead body of Sanjay was found in mortuary of LBS Hospital. He got the dead body shifted from ward to Mortuary of LBS Hospital. He got the postmortem conducted on dead body of Sanjay Srivastava. Suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased in the presence of doctor and said suicide note was seized vide Ex.PW6/J.
21. PW7 on this aspect deposed that Sanjay Srivastava was his brother in law. At about 5 a.m. on 07.12.2001, landlord of Sanjay Srivastava approached him and told him that condition of Sanjay Srivastava had deteriorated and he was admitted in LBS Hospital, Khichripur. He arrived in the hospital. After some minutes, Sanjay Srivastava breathed his last at LBS Hospital.
22. PW12 Dr. L.C. Gupta, deposed that on 08.12.2001 when he was serving in LBS Hospital as Specialist Forensic Medicine, he conducted post mortem on dead body of Sanjay Srivastava, age 32 years old, male vide PMR No.259/2001. The inquest papers were submitted SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 13/46 by SI Krishan Kumar on behalf of SHO, PS Mandawali. Deceased was hospitalized in the casualty of LBS Hospital on 07.12.2001 with alleged history of ingestion of some tablets and complaint of vomiting and gastic burns and it was treated as a case of sulfas poisoning. Rigourmortis was present all over body, postmortem staining was present at the back, both eyes were closed, conjunctiva were congested, face was suffused, bleeding of dark pinkish colour blood peeping out through both side nostrils, and mouth was closed. There were no injury on the body. The cause of death in postmortem report Ex.PW12/A was opined as ingestion of poisonous substance (sulfas tablets).
23. PW15, inter alia, deposed that on 30.04.2002 he was posted at CFSL Hyderabad as Dy. Director (Toxicology). He received sealed wooden box stated to contain viscera of deceased Sh. Sanjay Srivastava, male, age 32 years, vide PMR No.259/2001 dated 08.12.2001 having three plastic containers, etc. The articles were marked as Ex.1A, 1B, 1C and 1D, respectively. He found that seal impression were tallied with specimen seal forwarded with case document and these were found intact. He examined the articles/documents and proved his report as Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW15/A and opined that Ex.1A and 1B was having aluminum phosphide and on Ex.1C only phosphine could SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 14/46 be detected.
24. Both the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Code stated that they did not know that Sanjay Srivastava deceased consumed sulfas tablets but they came to know about the incident after his death on 08.12.2001.
In view of the evidence on record and particularly reproduced here in above, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved that Sanjay Srivastava committed suicide.
Abatement of Suicide by Accused Vijay Sukhija & Uttam Duggal
25. PW4 on this aspect deposed that Sanjay Srivastava was his eldest son. He had identified the dead body of his son vide Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. Letter Ex.PW3/1 was handed over to police for comparison of writing of his son on suicide note. Ex.PW3/2 was in the handwriting of his son Sanjay Srivastava. Complaint Ex.PW3/A was made by him. His son used to tell him that he was being scolded by his employers. He advised his son to leave the job and come to Lucknow and also advised to narrate these facts before his maternal uncle who was employed in CBI.
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 15/4626. PW7 deposed on this aspect that in the year 2001, he was serving with V.K. Traders, B-20, Vigyan Vihar, Delhi. In those days he was also working in said company which was owned by accused Vijay Sukhija present in the court. Accused Uttam Duggal was working as Accountant in the said company. On those days dearness had gone high and salary of people was meagre and it was difficult to meet two ends. He requested Vijay Sukhija to enhance his salary but his request was not conceded. He continued serving with him as he could not get better job elsewhere. They made an appeal to the office of Labour Commissioner requesting for taking steps for enhancement of their salary. 17-18 employee of Sukhija approached the Labour Commissioner vide application Mark PW7/A. Labour Inspector came to their work place and asked Sh. Sukhija to enhance their wages. When Labour Inspector left the premises Mr. Sukhija abused him a lot. They were tortured a lot. Mr. Sukhija used to say to them either they should leave the job or they should work like a donkey. Mr. Sukhija also asked them to sign on blank paper but he refused to sign the same. He left services of Mr. Sukhija on 28.11.2001 but his brother in law (sala) namely Sanjay Srivastava continued serving with him. In the last days of November 2011 Sanjay Srivastava went to his native place SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 16/46 in Lucknow alongwith his family members on Chhat Puja. He returned Delhi on 02.12.2001 leaving behind his wife and children. Sanjay Srivastava continued serving with him. He was residing in Mandawali and he was also residing in Mandawali in those days. There was a distance of half kilometer in between their residence. On 06.12.2001 during evening hours, Sanjay Srivastava suddenly visited him. He was disturbed a lot. He told him that Vijay Sukhija and Uttam Duggal forcibly obtained his signatures on blank papers. He also told that anything may happen to him. He may be murdered. He advised him that nothing would happen to him and that no consequences will ensue on his signing blank papers and that he should go to his house and take rest. At about 5 a.m., in the next morning on 07.12.2001 his landlord approached him and told that condition of Sanjay Srivastava had deteriorated and he was admitted in LBS Hospital, Khichripur. He arrived in the hospital where doctor further told him that Sanjay Srivastava had consumed sulfas tablets. After few minutes Sanjay Srivastava breathed his last in the hospital. He identified writing and signatures of Sanjay Srivastava at point Q2 on document Ex.PW3/2.
27. PW3 on this aspect deposed that her husband had been working as Marketing Officer for the last 9 years SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 17/46 at Vigyan Vihar, Delhi. Her husband was pressing his demand. On that account there was a dispute between him on one hand and Vijay Sukhija on the other. She heard his name from her husband. In the month of December 2001, she went to Shasa Ram, Bihar to participate in Chhat Puja. On 07.12.2001 she received an information that her husband was serious. Her husband used to write letters to her. Letter Ex.PW3/1 and Ex.PW3/2 were written by her husband. As and when her husband used to leave for his office, he used to remain sad and depress on account of abusive behaviour meted out to him. She made complaint Ex.PW3/A after the death of her husband.
28. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that alleged suicide note is dated 05.12.2001. The alleged suicide was committed on 07.12.2001. Thus, there is a difference of about two days in writing of suicide note and committing of suicide. The suicide note is not proximate to the suicide and therefore, no reliance can be place on the suicide note dated 05.12.2001.
29. In support of his arguments he relied on a case Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 CAR 255 (SC), wherein Apex Court held that:
"The prosecution story if believed, shows that the quarrel SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 18/46 between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25 July, 1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26th July, 1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July, 1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of abatement are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 IPC. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunkened condition. It is a common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared,therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensured on 25th July, 1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone and none else, is responsible for his death."
30. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution has failed to establish that either or both of the accused abated Sanjay Srivastava to commit suicide. He further argued that in the facts and circumstances in which Sanjay Srivastava committed suicide, it cannot be said that accused persons were responsible for his suicide.
31. In support of his arguments, counsel for accused relied on a case Hira Lal Jain v. State, 2001 Cri.LJ 1212 wherein Delhi High Court observed that:
"5. From a reading of the clause 'Firstly' of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, it is clear that a person who SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 19/46 instigates another to do a thing, abets him to do that thing. A person is said to instigate another when he goads, provokes, incites, urges forward or encourage another to commit a crime. A serious question that has arisen in this case is whether there is any material suggesting that the petitioner had incited the deceased to commit suicide? The fact that a suicide note was recovered and from the contents thereof it certainly cannot be said that the petitioner had goad- ed, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. There being no material on record to show that the ingredient of the offence of abatement have been satisfied the framing of charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was bad in law."
32. Ld. Counsel for accused further relied on a case Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 947 wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"9. Abatement 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 it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC."
33. Ld. Counsel for accused further relied on a case Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 207, wherein the Supreme Court observed that:
"It is trite law now that where there is some material alleged in the FIR, then such FIR and the ensuing proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It is for this reason that we very closely examined the SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 20/46 FIR to see whether it amounts to a proper complaint for the offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC. Insofar as Section 294(b) IPC is concerned, we could not find a single word in the FIR or even in the so- called suicide note. Insofar as Section 306 IPC is concerned, even at the cost of repetition, we may say that merely because a person had a grudge against his superior officer and committed suicide on account of that grudge, even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under Section 306 IPC. It will still fall short of a proper allegation. It would have to be objectively seen whether the allegations made could reasonably be viewed as proper allegations against the appellant/accused to the effect that he had intended or engineered the suicide of the concerned person by his acts, words etc. When we put the present FIR on this test, it falls short. We have already explained that the baseless and irrelevant allegations could not be used as a basis for prosecution for a serious offence under Section 306 IPC. Similarly, we have already considered Section 294(b) IPC also. We have not been able to find anything. Under such circumstances, where the FIR itself does not have any material or is not capable of being viewed as having material for offence under Sections 306 and 294(b) IPC, as per the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1991(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 383 :
1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335, it would be only proper to quash the FIR and the further proceedings."
34. Ld. Counsel for accused further relied on a case Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 603 wherein the Supreme Court observed that:
"20. Abatement 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 SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 21/46 sustained.
21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is 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 deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
35. Ld. Counsel for accused relied on a case S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another, 2010(4) RCR (Criminal) 66 wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"28. Abatement involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation."
36. Ld. Counsel for accused relied on a case Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, 2010(1) RCR 643 wherein the Supreme Court observed that:
"15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 22/46 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 abatement 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 their 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.
16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide an 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 abatement 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."
[Emphasis supplied]
37. Ld. Counsel for accused relied on a case Kishori Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [SC], 2007 [2] 582 wherein the Supreme Court observed that:
"In cases of alleged abatement of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treatment the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P. (1995 AIR SCW 4570). Merely on the allegation of harassment conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. There is ample evidence on record that the deceased was disturbed because she had not given birth to any child. PWs 8, 10, and 11 have categorically stated that the deceased was SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 23/46 disappointed due to the said fact and her failure to beget a child and she was upset due to this."
38. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that accused should be presumed innocent till crime is proved against him. He further submitted that in the present case prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.
39. In support of his arguments, counsel for accused relied on a case Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, 2012(1) LRC 81 (SC) wherein the Apex Court observed that:
"28. It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused 'may have committed the offence' and 'must have committed the offence' which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognized as a human right which cannot be wished away. See Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 699 and Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 294: 2005 (2) LRC 246(SC). To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Ganesan v. Rama Sraghuraman & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 83 : 2011 (4) LRC 125 where this Court observed:
"Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The Presumption of innocence is human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India."SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 24/46
40. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that weight- age should be given to the P.M. Report. Sanjay Srivastava allegedly consumed sulphas. Doctor Opined that he committed suicide on abatement which is contrary on the established law as the doctor cannot expressed such opinion.
41. In support of his arguments, counsel for accused relied on a case Mohd. Zahid, v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1999 CRI. L.J. 3699 wherein the Supreme Court observed that:
"24. We are aware of the fact that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem, as compared to the statements found in the text-books, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory. This is one such case where we find that there is a reasonable doubt in regard to the cause of death of Jabeena and we find it not safe to rely upon the evidence of PW8, solely, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that Jabeena's death is proved by the prosecution to be homicidal."
42. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that in the circumstances where two possibilities are feasible then that possibilities or opinion that favours the accused should be given the preference.
43. In support of his arguments, counsel for accused relied on a case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 25/46 Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, it was inter alia held by Apex court that:
"It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt."
44. On considering the rival contentions of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons, I come to the conclusion that prosecution has successfully proved its case that both the accused created such circumstances which led to the commission of suicide by Sh. Sanjay Srivastava and thereby both of them instigated Sh. Sanjay Srivastava to commit suicide. The reasons which support my decision are firstly that in the suicide note, English translation version has already been reproduced in first paragraph of this judgment, deceased Sanjay Srivastava mentioned that both the accused persons were responsible for commission of suicide by him. Relevant portions of the suicide note have been highlighted by underlining it.
45. Secondly, PW3 wife of the deceased also corroborated the prosecution case. She, inter alia, stated that as and when her husband used to leave for his office, he used to remain sad and depressed on account of SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 26/46 abusive behaviour meted out to him.
46. Thirdly, PW7 brother in law of deceased Sanjay Srivastava and another employee of accused Vijay Sukhija also supported the prosecution case. His testimony has already been reproduced in this judgment. That has proved as how Mr. Sukhija was treating his employees. He used to abuse him and used to say to them either they should leave the job or they should work like a donkey. Deceased Sanjay Srivastava was disturbed due to the treatment meted out to him by accused Vijay Sukhija and Uttam Duggal.
47. Fourthly, father of the deceased PW4 also deposed that his deceased son used to tell him that he was being scolded by his employers. Thus he also supported the prosecution case.
48. Fifthly, the prosecution has successfully proved that suicide note Ex.PW3/2 was in fact written by deceased. This was also proved by scientific evidence and testimony of PW13 Dr. B. A. Vaid. In his testimony he inter alia stated that he examined standard document Ex.A1 and questioned documents Ex.Q1, Q1/1 and Q2 and opined that questioned documents and the admitted documents SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 27/46 were written by one and the same person.
49. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that PW13 Dr. B.A. Vaid was not a qualified expert. He failed to enlarge questioned and admitted handwritings and therefore, neither his testimony nor his report Ex.PW13/A is admissible in evidence.
50. This argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is not sustainable for two reasons firstly, that PW13 Dr. B.A. Vaid inter alia deposed that he was M.Sc., Ph.D in Physics and he had received specialized training in the Scientific Examination including handwriting identification and he had examined thousands of documents and expressed opinion on them independently. He was having 34 years of experience in that field. Therefore, it is held that he is an expert in the field of identification of handwritings and signature.
51. Secondly, Sanjay Srivastava had been serving with Vijay Sukhija for the last many years. He must have been writing several documents with him, besides signing not only on the attendance register but also on several documents during the period of his employment. If accused was of the opinion that admitted handwritings or the SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 28/46 questioned handwriting i.e. suicide note was not in the handwriting of the deceased, he could have produced the same not only before the Investigation Officer or before the court. He could have put these documents in cross examination to the witness or he could have examined independent defence witness to prove that suicide note, was in fact was not in the handwriting of the deceased but it was in the handwriting of somebody else but that was not done by either of the accused.
52. It would be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act which run as under:
114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.
The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations The Court may presume-- ***
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it; ***"
53. Turning to the present case, it is held that the handwritings, specimen handwritings and signature which were available with Sh. Vijay Sukhija as owner and Uttam Duggal as an accountant but they have failed to produce SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 29/46 the same. Therefore, a presumption may be drawn in favour of the prosecution and against the accused persons that the admitted handwritings and signatures of deceased Sanjay Srivastava were not produced as these were un- favourable to them. Thus, it can be concluded that Vijay Sukhija and Uttam Duggal were convinced that admitted handwriting and the handwriting of suicide note were of deceased Sanjay Srivastava. In view of these reasons, it is held that arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel in this aspect is not convincing and prosecution has successfully proved that suicide note was written by deceased Sanjay Srivastava.
54. Sixthly, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that prosecution witnesses have deposed differently about recovery of suicide note. He referred the cross examination of PW1 wherein he deposed that suicide note Ex.PW3/2 was handed over to his father by the doctor on 08.12.2001 about 11 a.m. PW6 deposed in his cross examination that he did not recollect whether he had mentioned that suicide note was recovered from the dead body. PW9 in cross examination deposed that suicide note was found at the time when deceased was in the hospital. He emphasized that different witnesses have deposed differently regarding recovery of suicide note and he SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 30/46 submitted that it may be presumed that suicide note was not at all recovered but subsequently, it was planted on the accused persons.
55. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that minor discrepancies are bound to happen and these are liable to be ignored.
56. My attention goes to cases reported as Ramesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (HP) 2004(4) Crimes 60, wherein the the HP High Court observed:
"15. There are minor contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses but because of errors in individual perceptions and observations such contradictions are bound to occur. Secondly with the passage of time lapse of memory can also lead to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses. Human tendency to back up good cases by exaggerated version can be yet another reason for contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses. Therefore, while appreciating the evidence the Courts are not to attach undue importance to minor contradictions and discrepancies in the version given by the witnesses and not to disbelieve such statements as a whole because of such minor discrepancies/contradictions unless they go to the root of the case. The Court may ignore exaggerated part of the testimony and may act upon the part which may be otherwise reliable and trustworthy."SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 31/46
57. In case of Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (SC) 1999(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 588 :
1999 A.I.R. (SC) the Apex Court Observed:
9. Be it noted that the High Court is within its jurisdiction being the first appellate court to re-appraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of two witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, 1985(1) RCR(Crl.) 88 :
AIR 1985 SC 48. In paragraph 10 of the report, its Court observed :
"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. 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 SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 32/46 committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. 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 trival details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals."
58. In case of Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 the Apex Court in paragraph 13 observed:
"The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 33/46 they are otherwise trustworthy."
59. It has to be seen, if minor contradictions and the points discussed here in above have created any doubt about the truthfulness of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. After carefully scrutinizing the evidence available on record, and in view of the principles of law laid down in Ramesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (HP), (supra), Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana, (supra), and Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, (supra), I am of the view that neither the points raised by Ld. Defence Counsel nor the minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses could create any dent in the prosecution case particularly when all the material witnesses deposed consistently. Their testimonies have been supported by the police witnesses and corroborated by the other witnesses.
60. Seventhly, the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel that there was no proximity of the writing of alleged suicide note and commission of suicide is not convincing. The presumptions of law laid down in case Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra), will also not provide any benefit to the accused. The reasons for this decision are firstly, that on suicide note Ex.PW3/2, the deceased has not mentioned the date SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 34/46 of its writing and signing. It has reference that he had gone to his office on 05.12.2001. Deceased has written the occurrence which had taken place on 05.12.2001 and thereafter till writing of suicide note. It has also reference for the date 06.12.2001 when he was sent to Hissar. He was admitted in the hospital in the early hours of 07.12.2001. Thus, it is not convincing that there was no proximity of time in writing of suicide note and commission of suicide. Secondly, the facts of present case and case Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (supra), are different. In that case the deceased had always remained in drunken condition. His excessive drinking led to debauchery whereas in the present case, there is no evidence that deceased was having any such habit for which he himself was responsible for his suicide. Thus, for these reasons the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel is not sustainable on this aspect.
61. Eighthly, the principles of law laid down in cases Hira Lal Jain v. State, (supra), Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat, (supra), Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (supra), Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (supra), S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another, (supra), Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (supra), and Kishori Lal v. State of SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 35/46 Madhya Pradesh [SC], (supra), referred and relied on by Ld. Defence Counsel do not provide any benefit to the accused persons as the facts of those cases and present case are different. Conversely, all these cases provide benefit to the prosecution as in the present case prosecution has successfully proved as to how by their abusive behaviour, torture, intimidation, the accused persons instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
62. Ninethly, the principles of law laid down in case Kailash Gour v. State of Assam, (supra) and Mohd. Zahid, v. State of Tamil Nadu, (supra), referred and relied on by Ld. Defence Counsel do not provide any benefit to the accused as the prosecution has established beyond reasonable suspicion and doubt that both the accused persons by their unpleasant behaviour, harassment, intimidation, and abusive conduct instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
63. Tenthly, the principles of law laid down in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (supra), referred and relied on by Ld. Defence Counsel do not provide any benefit to the accused persons as there are no two possibilities in the present case one which may goes in favour of prosecution and one which benefits the accused.
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 36/46Conversely, the prosecution evidence on record has abundantly proved that those are the accused persons who instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
64. Eleventhly, that argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that at the time of admission of deceased in the hospital, he was conscious and the police also arrived and recorded statement of deceased Ex.PW6/B and that statement does not have any reference of suicide note, will not provide any benefit to the accused persons as at that time deceased was struggling between the life and death and he is not presumed to be in such state of mind so as to recall about the suicide note and make his complete statement.
65. Twelthly, that argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that there was contradictions between the suicide note and statement of PW3 regarding a case before labour court will not provide any benefit to the accused persons as not only suicide note Ex.PW3/B but also award of labour court Ex.PW7/DX have proved that deceased was one of the parties before labour court in an industrial dispute with M/s V.K. Traders and Another.
66. Thirteethly, that argument of Ld. Defence SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 37/46 Counsel that had admitted handwritings Ex.PW3/1 and suicide note Ex.PW3/2 were sent to CEQD Shimla very late, will not provide any benefit to the accused persons as PW6 explained the cause for delay satisfactorily by deposing that these were not sent immediately since priority letter was not available. Besides, delay in sending these documents has neither caused prejudice nor injustice to the accused persons.
67. Fourteenthly, that argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that failure of police to arrest and charge sheet the accused persons itself has established that no case against the accused persons was made out for abatement to commit suicide is not convincing as Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate after perusal of case file, took cognizance of the case against accused persons. It is the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate who has been empowered to take cognizance of offence u/s 190 of the Code.
68. Fifteenthly, other prosecution witnesses, namely PW2 by proving memo Ex.PW2/2 vide which letter was taken into possession; PW6 by proving DD No.13A as Ex.PW6/A, parcel containing gastric lavage of deceased as Ex.PW6/B, seizure memo Ex.PW6/C, seizure memo of vomiting of deceased as Ex.PW6/D, inquest papers as SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 38/46 Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW6/G, seizure memo of suicide note Ex.PW6/J, seizure memo of vicera of deceased Ex.PW6/K; PW8 who proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW8/A and endorsement on rukka Ex.PW8/B: PW9 who handed over rukka handed over by Doctor to S.I. Krishan Kumar PW6; PW10 who partly investigated the case and received report from CEQD, Shimla and recorded statements of witnesses, statement of deceased Ex.PW6/B and prepared charge sheet have also corroborated the prosecution case.
69. Sixteenthly, the principles of law laid down in cases, Wazir Chand v. State of Haryana, (supra), Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, (supra), Prashant Manchanda v. Ltd. Governor of Delhi & Anr., (supra) and Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti v. State, (supra), support the prosecution case.
70. Lastly, the evidence on record has proved all the ingredients of offence of abatement of suicide punishable u/s 306 IPC.
CONCLUSIONS
71. Consequent upon the above discussion, reasons and evidence on record and particularly discussed here in above, it is held that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any suspicion or reasonable shadow of SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 39/46 doubt against both the accused persons namely Vijay Sukhija and Uttam Duggal that Sanjay Srivastava committed suicide and both the accused persons by their conduct, behaviour and intimidation abated deceased Sanjay Srivastava to commit suicide. Therefore, both the accused are held guilty and convicted for the offence of abatement of suicide punishable u/s 306 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 16th November, 2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL) Additional Sessions Judge-02 East District, KKD Courts, Delhi SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 40/46 IN THE COURT OF DR. T.R. NAVAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC NO.22/10 FIR No.190/04 PS Mandawali U/S 306 IPC State Versus Vijay Sukhija & Anr.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 19.11.2012 Present: Sh. U.H. Siddiqui Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State.
Convict/accused Vijay Sukhija & Uttam Duggal are present in J.C. Sh. Sanjay Gupta with Sh. Inderjeet Singh and Sh. Raj Kamal Arya Advocates for the convict/accused persons.
I have heard arguments on the quantum of sentence.
2. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel that accused/convict Sh. Uttam Duggal is a married man of 36 years of age; he has family consisting of old ailing parents, three months pregnant SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 41/46 wife; his father is chronic heart patient and was operated upon for bladder tumour and he is also suffering from prostate problems; his mother has hearing and eye sight problems; he is not a previous convict and he is the only bread earner in the family. Accused/Convict Vijay Sukhija is about 56 years of age; his family consists of wife and two sons; his one son is married and another is going to marry in January 2013; he is chronic arthritis patient and he has underwent both hip replacement surgery and he is still under regular treatment; he has been advised not to use chair below the height of 18 inches; his wife is diabetic and high B.P. patient; and he is not a previous convict. It has been prayed that lenient view in sentence may be taken which may meet the end of justice.
3. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that accused persons have committed a crime of heinous nature in which a young person lost his life and his family has been ruined and therefore, they deserve for harsh punishment. It has also been requested that out of the fine amount some amount of compensation may be SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 42/46 awarded to the widow of deceased Sanjay Srivastava. It has also been submitted that heavy fine may be imposed on accused Vijay Sukhija in comparison of other accused Uttam Duggal as Vijay Sukhija is owner and Uttam Duggal was in his employment at the relevant time.
4. Keeping in view the submissions and all relevant facts and circumstances in which the accused persons committed crime, it would be appropriate if lenient view in sentence is taken and victim is compensated by way of awarding compensation. Accordingly, convict/accused Vijay Sukhija is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- in default simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC. Convict/accused Uttam Duggal is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC.
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 43/465. Out of the total fine amount of Rs.1,60,000/-, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to PW3 Smt. Deepika Srivastava, widow of the deceased Sh. Sanjay Srivastava, R/o Panchsheel Niweria, Sasaram Bihar, as compensation u/s 357 Cr.P.C. However, that amount will be payable to her after expiration of the period of appeal.
6. It is further ordered that if convicts/accused persons have undergone any period in judicial custody, that period will be set off against the sentence as provided u/s 428 Cr. P.C.
7. The convicts/accused persons be sent to imprisonment to serve the sentence.
8. A copy each of judgment and order on sentence is supplied to each convicts/accused persons free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
on 19.11.2012 (DR. T.R. NAVAL)
Additional Sessions Judge-02
East District, KKD Courts, Delhi
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 44/46
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 45/46
SC No.22/10 State Vs. Vijay Sukhija & Anr. Page 46/46