Delhi District Court
State vs 1 Om Devi (A-1) on 27 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI
DELHI
New Sessions Case No. 52685/2016
FIR No. 266/2012
PS Kanjhawala
U/s 306/379/34 IPC
State Versus 1 Om Devi (A-1)
Wife of late Sh. Harpal,
Resident of H. No. 1506,
Shri Nagar Colony, Rohtak,
Haryana.
2 Amit Malik (A-2)
Son of late Sh. Harpal,
Resident of H. No. 2489/30,
Shri Nagar Colony, Rohtak,
Haryana.
Date of institution in Sessions Court: 15.01.2016
Date of conclusion of arguments : 13.01.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 27.01.2017
JUDGMENT
1 Accused Om Devi (A-1) and her son Amit Malik (A-2) have been sent up to face trial for abetting suicide of HC Tejpal. A-1 has been charge-sheeted for committing theft as well.
2 HC Tejpal (deceased herein) was posted in PS Kanjhawala in the year 2012. On 02.12.2012, he was on emergency duty. Since he was not picking up the phone, Duty Officer sent Ct. Ashok to fetch him. When Ct. Ashok went to IO Room, situated at first floor of building of PS Kanjhawala, he saw Tejpal lying dead having gunshot wound on his right temple. DD No. 27A was accordingly registered at the FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 1 of 17 behest of Insp. Arvind Kumar, the then SHO, PS Kanjhawala. Crime Team was summoned and investigation was handed over to SI Naresh Kumar.
3 Crime Team inspected the spot. One service pistol of deceased was also found lying near the spot. On search, one suicide note besides one mobile phone was recovered from right pocket of wearing shirt of deceased.
4 As per contents of suicide note, Tejpal was fed up with A-1 Om Devi and her son Amit Malik. He penned his woes claiming that they had been coercing him to give money to them. He also mentioned therein that A-2 Amit Malik also pressurized her mother to make demand of Rs. 4 lacs from him (HC Tejpal). He also alleged that his ATM Card was stolen besides one gold ring by A-1. He asserted that a sum of Rs. 2 lacs had been withdrawn by A-1 Om Devi after stealing his ATM card. All in all, according to him, both mother-son duo were harassing him and had compelled him to commit suicide. Thus, he held both the accused responsible for his eventual death.
5 Investigation was carried out. FSL expert opined that the suicide note was in the handwriting of deceased Tejpal. As per postmortem report, death was due to shock associated with cranio-cereberal damage under injury no. 1 (firearm- entry wound) and injury no. 2 (firearm-exit wound). Injuries were opined to be ante- mortem in nature.
6 Statements of accounts of the bank of deceased as well as A-1 Om Devi were collected during investigation. Statement of account of one SI Sandeep was also collected. CCTV footage of ATM of Axis Bank, Rohtak was also taken into possession. Call details records of relevant mobile numbers were also obtained from the concerned service providers. As per investigating agency, A-1 Om Devi and deceased Tejpal used to converse with each other regularly.
7 It is in these circumstances that both the accused have been arrested and charge-sheeted.
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 2 of 178 Charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Magisterial Court on 15.09.2015 and since offence under Section 306 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, case was committed.
9 Case was received on allocation on 15.01.2016 and arguments were heard and vide order dated 05.04.2016, both the accused were ordered to be charged under Section 306/34 IPC and simultaneously A-1 Om Devi was also directed to be charged under Section 379 IPC. Charges were framed to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
10 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined sixteen witnesses who can be classified as under:
Public witnesses:-
i) PW1 Sh. Devender Singh, brother of deceased (who had merely identified the dead body)
ii) PW2 Ms. Indira (wife of deceased.
iii) PW13 Sh. Kartar Singh (relative of deceased who had simply identified the dead body) Witnesses related to investigation:
i) PW3 Sh. Yogesh Tripathi (Nodal Officer for proving CDR of A-1 Om Devi)
ii) PW4 Sh. Israr Babu (Nodal Officer for proving CDR of deceased Tejpal)
iii) PW6 HC Bhim Singh (police official who has proved details regarding withdrawal of money from GPF Account.)
iv) PW7 SI Niorse Kumari (for proving admitted handwriting of deceased)
v) PW8 ASI Ram Saran (duty officer)
vi) PW9 SI Ajeet Singh (Incharge, Mobile Crime Team)
vii) PW10 Ct. Sandeep (Photographer, Mobile Crime Team)
viii) PW11 HC Anoop Singh (MHCM)
ix) PW12 Sh. Prince Tyagi (Official from Axis Bank where accused Om Devi, deceased and SI Sandeep Singh were having salary accounts)
x) PW16 Insp. Rajesh (Second IO) Doctor/Expert witnesses:
i) PW5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra (autopsy surgeon)
ii) PW14 Dr. N.P. Waghmare (Ballistic Expert)
iii) PW15 Dr. Virender Singh (Handwriting Expert)
11 Both the accused were permitted to file written statements under Section 313 (5) Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 3 of 1712 They filed separate written statements. A-1 Om Devi claimed that the deposition of PW2 Indira was false and there was nothing on record which might show any abetment on her part. She claimed that she had been falsely implicated at the instance of wife of deceased in connivance with police. She did not desire to lead any evidence in defence. Her son Amit has also, similarly, pleaded innocence.
13 As per learned Addl. P.P., suicide note holds the key and such suicide note clearly indicates that both accused had abetted the suicide as they were pressurizing HC Tejpal to unnecessarily pay them a large sum of money. He has also argued that testimony of wife of deceased is of paramount importance as deceased had confided in her and told her that accused were exploiting him and had threatened to defame in the society in case their demand of money was not met. He has also strongly relied upon the bank statement which clearly indicates that the substantial amount was withdrawn from the account of deceased through ATM.
14 All such contentions have been refuted by defence.
15 According to Sh. Tehlan, suicide note does not suggest any sort of abetment. It has also been argued by him that even otherwise, investigating agency, for the reasons best known to it, did not collect admitted handwriting and, therefore, there is big question mark over the authorship of alleged suicide note. He has also contended that it is not clear as to from where such suicide note was recovered and it rather seems to have been planted subsequently. He has also contended that police kept on deliberating the matter and though suicide had taken place on 02.12.2012 yet the statement of Indira was recorded as late as on 03.07.2013 which smacks of malafide and fabrication.
16 I have heard learned Addl. P.P and learned defence counsel and carefully perused the entire material available on record as well as written submissions filed by the defence.
17 Let me first take note of few admitted facts.
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 4 of 1718 HC Tejpal and A-1 Om Devi were in Delhi Police. It is also admitted fact that they both also remained posted together during their service tenure and they knew each other very well.
19 As regards mobile conversation and call details records, A-1 Om Devi was admittedly user of mobile number 7876497516 and deceased Tejpal was subscriber of mobile number 9899057765. Making use of available software, police should have presented clear data that call detail records (CDRs) reflected that they used to talk each other quite often. More importantly, mobile of deceased was seized immediately and it was sent to FSL as well. More than 4 years have elapsed but report is yet to see the light of the day. Moreover, the death of Tejpal came to fore by 3.30 pm and his mobile was also seized immediately thereafter. It is, however, not explained as to how there is an outgoing call even after more than one hour besides many incoming connected calls.
20 It is not in dispute that HC Tejpal had committed suicide on 02.12.2012 in the premises of Police Station Kanjhawala. He had used 9MM pistol bearing no. 16769517 to shoot himself. It was his officially allocated firearm. Such firearm was picked up from the spot immediately. One empty cartridge was also picked up from the spot. Since bullet was fired from a very close range, bullet was able to make an exit. Testimony of PW14 Dr. N.P. Waghmare clearly indicates that such pistol was a firearm that the empty cartridge case (as recovered from the spot) had been fired from the same pistol. Testimony of Dr. Waghmare is unrebutted. Mobile Crime Team had also reached at the spot and as per PW9 SI Ajeet Singh, service pistol of the deceased was found lying on the floor near the cot. PW10 Ct. Sandeep had taken the photographs of the scene of crime and he has also deposed that they had seen service pistol lying on the floor near the cot. Fourteen photographs clicked by him have been proved as Ex. PW10/A1 to A14 and in two such photographs Ex. PW10/A12 & A13, pistol is found lying on the floor near the cot. Such pistol was immediately deposited in malkhana and was eventually sent to FSL seeking expert opinion. This also becomes apparent from the testimony of PW11 HC Anoop Singh, FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 5 of 17 MHC(M).
21 Though prosecution should have also produced relevant record showing that such pistol had been officially allocated to HC Tejpal yet fact remains that even defence does not seem to have any qualm on such aspect.
22 PW5 Dr. Manoj Dhingra had conducted the autopsy and on external examination, he noticed following injuries:
(i) firearm entry wound 3 cm x 2 cm bone deep, oval shaped, situated 1.5 c.m vertically above the right ear (pinna), surrounded by abrasion collar and grease collar seen around the wound margin.
(ii) Firearm exit wound 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm bone deep, oval shaped, situated just behind the upper border of left ear pinna associated with laceration 1.5 x 0.5 c.m. of outer mid part of left pinna.
23 According to him, track of wound extended through right temporal scalp area entering the brain and passing through the right temporal lobe to right & left parietal lobe and then through left temporal lobe & made exit through injury no. 2. His report has been proved as Ex. PW5/A and as per such report, death was due to shock associated with craniocerebral damage under injury no. 1 & 2 which could be possible by a projectile discharged from a firearm weapon capable of discharging such a projectile. He has also opined that both the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
24 Thus, it is very much evident that HC Tejpal had shot himself with his service pistol.
25 It is now time to find out as to why he had committed suicide.
26 Prosecution has strongly relied upon suicide note. Such suicide note has been proved as Ex. P-1. Image files of such suicide note are extracted herein after.
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 6 of 17 FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 7 of 1727 Such suicide note would reveal that HC Tejpal get in touch with of A-1 Om Devi way back in the year 1991. Surprisingly, according to him, from the day, she came into his contact, she started pressurizing him to give her money. This FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 8 of 17 means that deceased was paying her money since 1991. He also revealed that he had given her Rs. 2 lacs on one occasion and Rs. 1 lac on another occasion. He also paid her Rs. 45,000/- when she got constructed a house in Shri Nagar Colony and paid her a sum of Rs. 50,000/- when she was levied penalty by electricity department. According to such suicide note, A-2 Amit was pressurizing his mother to obtain Rs. 4 lacs from him (HC Tejpal) and, therefore, he (HC Tejpal) had withdrawn such sum from his GPF Account. As per suicide note, he caught A-1 Om Devi with HC Shyam Sunder Rathi in Bahadur Garh in a car. Next day, Om Devi called him up and asked him to come to Bahadur Garh and demanded Rs. 5,000/- from him. Since, he was not having any money with him, he requested SI Sandeep Singh to give him his ATM card and then he withdrew a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and gave such amount to Om Devi. According to him, during that time only, his ATM card and one gold ring kept in the purse had been stolen. Later on, he learnt that someone had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from his bank account. Yet later on, he realized that such amount had been withdrawn by Om Devi. It somewhat indicates his guess work and estimation only. He does not seem very certain. He claimed that Om Devi and her son were troubling him and he was fed up with them and that they both had compelled him to die and, therefore, he was committing suicide.
28 I have seen the handwriting contained in suicide note Ex. P-1 as well as the one contained in admitted handwriting (Ex. PW7/B1 to B4) collected by the investigating agency. Though defence has claimed that no witness has been examined who might have seen HC Tejpal writing those admitted documents yet fact remains that these were written by him during the discharge of his official duties on various dates i.e. 20.04.2010, 29.10.2010, 02.05.2012 & 02.09.2012 and, therefore, these documents are of impeccable nature and character. FSL expert has also given a definite opinion about the authorship of such suicide note and according to report Ex. PW15/A given by Dr. Virender Singh, the person who wrote the admitted handwriting (A1 to A8) had also written suicide note (Q1 to Q3 & Q1/1). Contention of defence that suicide note has been planted and fabricated is misplaced one as it was recovered from the pocket of the wearing shirt of deceased instantly and was seized immediately. Undoubtedly, wife of deceased has claimed FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 9 of 17 in her cross-examination that she was shown such suicide note by her children at her house later on but she also claimed that she did not recall whether it was original suicide note or a photocopy. In all probabilities, she might have been shown a photocopy of the suicide note during investigation at a subsequent point of time and, therefore, no advantage can be dug out by the defence on this score.
29 Let me now see as to what PW2 Indira has deposed about accused persons.
30 She has claimed that her husband used to remain upset and when she asked him, he revealed that Om Devi and her son had been demanding money from him. According to her, in November 2012 her husband told her that a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was to be arranged in connection with marriage of Amit and, therefore, he was upset. He also told that Om Devi had threatened that in case such amount was not arranged and paid, she would insult him in the society and would get him removed from the service and would implicate him in a case and, therefore, he withdrew a sum of Rs. 4 lacs from his GPF Account. She also deposed that her husband had also told that his ATM card and gold ring had been stolen by Om Devi. She also identified handwriting of her deceased husband on suicide note Ex. P-1.
31 She was cross-examined at length by the defence and in such cross- examination, she claimed that prior to 2012, her husband had not stated about any instance regarding his quarrel with anyone. She also claimed that she never met Om Devi and her son prior to death of her husband. She also does not know the date, month or year when her husband had told about the alleged demand made by A-1 Om Devi. She also does not know as to when on previous occasions, her husband had paid money to Om Devi. She also does not know as to what reason was cited by her husband when he had withdrawn the money from GPF Account. She also does not know as to when her husband had told her about the alleged threats given by Om Devi. She does not know whether her husband had lodged any complaint or report regarding alleged threats. She also did not ask her husband to lodge any report in this regard. She did admit that her husband had not lodged FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 10 of 17 any report regarding theft of ATM card and gold ring. She deposed that her daughter was married in the year 2009 but she does not know as to what amount was spent in the marriage of her such daughter. It was put to her that HC Tejpal (her husband) had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lacs from Om Devi for the arrangement of marriage of her such daughter. Instead of denying such fact, she, strangely, pleaded her ignorance about the same. She, however, claimed that it was wrong to suggest that her husband had to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lacs to accused Om Devi.
32 There is, indeed, one aspect which I cannot resist commenting upon.
33 HC Tejpal had committed suicide on 02.12.2012 and it is really bewildering and astonishing as to why statement of PW2 Indira was not recorded immediately. After all, being wife of HC Tejpal, she could have been in the thick of things. She should have been contacted by the police immediately. For totally inexplicable and mysterious reasons, she was not contacted and was eventually examined after more than eight months. It is, definitely, not in good taste and has potential to suggest mendacity.
34 Be that as it may, fate of the case is largely dependent upon the contents of suicide note. I have gone through the same very carefully and minutely and I would mince no words in holding that the contents of such suicide note do not take us to the point where it can be, safely and certainly, inferred that there was overt act and pressure of money of such a magnitude and level as did not leave any other option for HC Tejpal but to commit suicide.
35 I cannot be oblivious of the fact that HC Tejpal was a serving police official. If at all, he felt that pressure was unjustified or that demand was illegal or that Om Devi was blackmailing him, he could have easily approached the police. He could also have reported the matter to his seniors but nothing of that sort had happened. There is something more between them what meets the eyes as even as per suicide note, he was giving her money right from 1991. In his suicide note, he never claimed that Om Devi had threatened that he would be implicated in a FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 11 of 17 false case or that he would be defamed in society and, therefore, there is no angle of blackmailing either. He also did not make it clear in suicide note as to why he was, repeatedly, helping her financially.
36 As per suicide note, at best, there was constant demand of money from the side of accused Om Devi. However, such demand, in itself, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as an act of abetment.
37 As per the bank statement of HC Tejpal, a sum of Rs. 4 lacs was deposited in his account on 22.11.2012 and total sum of Rs. 2 lacs had been withdrawn from such bank account through different ATMs. As per bank statement, following amounts were withdrawn:-
S. No. Date Amount Withdrawn Place of ATM
1 25.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II
2 25.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II
3 25.11.2012 Rs. 10,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II
4 26.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
5 26.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
6 26.11.2012 Rs. 1,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
7 26.11.2012 Rs. 2,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
8 26.11.2012 Rs. 2,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
9 26.11.2012 Rs. 2,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
10 26.11.2012 Rs. 2,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
11 26.11.2012 Rs. 1,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
12 27.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
13 27.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
14 27.11.2012 Rs. 10,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, PTC Jaroda Kal
15 28.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II
16 28.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 12 of 17
17 28.11.2012 Rs. 20,000.00 ATM Axis Bank, Rohtak Br-II
Total Rs. 2,00,000.00
38 There is nothing before the Court which may suggest that these were
unauthorized withdrawals by Om Devi and Om Devi alone. There is nothing on record which may show that ATM card had been stolen by A-1 Om Devi or that she had used the same unauthorizedly. Mere recovery of ATM card of her colleague Tejpal from her would not mean much particularly keeping in mind the fact they both i.e. deceased and Om Devi were in some sort of intimate relationship. Sh. Asthana also requested that prosecution be given one more opportunity to call first I.O. However, such request was declined as state had been given sufficient opportunities already. Moreover, the fate of the case primarily hinges upon the testimony of Indira and contents of suicide note. Therefore, testimony of SI Naresh was not going to give any real boost to the case of prosecution.
39 I do feel that the concerned official of the Axis Bank should have been called by the prosecution in order to at least show that any request for blockage of ATM card was made by HC Tejpal. Normally, when ATM card is stolen, instant reaction on the part of any card-holder is to make request to block the card immediately. No such thing has been presented before the Court. It seems that police had tried hard to collect the CCTV footage of the concerned ATM kiosks for said dates of withdrawal. PW12 Sh. Prince Tyagi has graced the witness box. He is from Khan Market Branch, Axis Bank. Such branch is maintaining salary accounts of the officials of Delhi Police. He has proved statement of account of HC Tejpal Singh, Om Devi as well as of SI Sandeep. As regards video footage regarding withdrawal of money from ATM, HDFC Branch, Bahadur Garh, Haryana from the account of SI Sandeep and also from the account of Om Devi from ATM Rohtak Branch, according to him, as per the report of concerned Deputy Manager, CCTV footage could not be provided as the footage was preserved only for three months.
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 13 of 1740 Fact, however, remains that Axis Bank did provide CCTV footage containing video clips of its ATM Branch situated near Ashoka Cinema, Rohtak much prior to that and, therefore, the idea behind seeking fresh footage seems quite awkward. Footage provided by Axis Bank is of 25.11.2012 from 11.00 AM to 5.00 PM. Unfortunately, such footage was not proved in any manner whatsoever and even certificate under Section 65B Indian Evidence Act does not serve the real purpose as the footage was generated by ATM Vendor of Axis Bank but the certificate had been issued by Branch Manager. Despite that, when I went through such CCTV footage by playing the CD, nothing substantial could be deciphered as the faces were totally unclear and blurred making it hard to perceive anything worth from such CCTV footage.
41 Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. A person abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107.
42 In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24, Apex Court opined that there should be intention to provoke incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. 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 strait-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Be that as it may, fact remains that mere demand of money could not have prompted any reasonable man to commit suicide. Merely, because HC Tejpal felt that way would not be sufficient in itself. There is hardly any material on record which may indicate that demand was of such nature or kind that it left no other option for HC Tejpal but to shoot himself.
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 14 of 1743 Alleged act of demand by accused cannot tantamount to abetment. Such act of accused cannot be considered to be sufficient to constitute instigation or provocation since it is not reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended that by their such act of demanding money, the suicide would be the lone consequence.
44 In context of Section 306 IPC, the important facet is what the accused intended and not what the deceased felt. Ingredients of suicide would be satisfied only when the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct encouragement or incitement of accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. It should come on record that such conduct crated immense disturbance and resulted in psychological imbalance and any normal and reasonable human being would have also been compelled to suicide due to such behaviour, act, conduct or omission on the part of the accused persons. Court is required to be extremely careful and circumspect in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case finding out whether the suicide had been abetted or it took place because victim was hypersensitive to ordinary circumstances.
45 It cannot be concluded from the evidence brought on record that conduct of accused was such that any person of ordinary prudence would have been driven to commit suicide. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In the case of Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs. CBI 131 (2006) DLT 643 Delhi, it has been observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient and state is required to show that the accused had mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
46 In Vivek Kumar Jain Vs State of MP 2014 scconline MP 7848, accused had allegedly demanded money from victim who committed suicide while leaving behind a suicide note. It was held that there was nothing to suggest abetment. Reference be also made to observations appearing in Ved Prakash Vs State of MP 1995 Cr.L.J. 893 MP, Ashish Chaudhary Vs State (Crl Revision FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 15 of 17 petition No. 725/2009 decided on 19.01.2009 Delhi High Court) and Hira Lal Jain Vs State 200(2) JCC 478 Delhi.
47 In Santosh Nathumal Goenka vs Unknown (Crl Appl No. 2553/2009 decided on 06.10.2009 by Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench), on account of constant demands, deceased felt harassed and committed suicide. It was held that Even if the case of the prosecution was accepted, persistent demands made by the person, who claim that they are entitled to recover moneys from any other person, cannot be equated to an overt act as understood in the Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It was also observed that if according to the deceased, he had paid substantial amount to the accused and if they were still demanding the money from him, it was open for him to institute a criminal complaint either at the Police Station or to the Court in order to ventilate his grievances. Suicide could not be considered as answer to the said persistent demands. Thus, even if in a suicide note left by the deceased there is reference that accused were demanding money persistently, the accused persons cannot be said to have committed an act of omission or commission which may make them either abettors or an instigators under Section 306 IPC. There is another point involved. If at all, Tejpal was under pressure and did not want to pay any money, he would not have made request for withdrawal of Rs. 4 lacs from GPF. Once the amount was already withdrawn for her, there was no reason for him to have felt further pressurized.
48 On careful perusal of all the circumstances and the contents of suicide note in particular, it seems likely that victim could not muster enough courage to rather file a complaint against accused if at all, they had been exploiting him. There is nothing to infer any extortion or blackmailing. Tejpal somehow felt dejected and committed self-annihilation. He, it seems, felt scared albeit unnecessarily of something horrible about to happen and surrendered meekly.
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 16 of 1749 As an upshot of my said discussion, I am of the considered opinion that accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. They are accordingly given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the charges levelled against them in the present case.
Announced in the open Court (MANOJ JAIN)
On this 27th day of January 2017 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC)
North-West District: Rohini Courts: Delhi
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ JAIN
MANOJ Date:
JAIN 2017.01.27
14:56:44
+0530
FIR No. 266/12 PS Kanjhawala (State Vs. Om Devi & Anr.) Page 17 of 17