Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
S.S. Chheena
Versus
Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1503 OF 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6811 of 2009)
Decided on : 12-08-2010
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Criminal Appeal - Deceased and one gave their written versions of the incident and thereafter one forwarded their versions to the University authorities for taking necessary action. Consequently, the enquiry was conducted by the Security Officer of the University – the appellant herein - Held, when Court carefully scrutinize and critically examine the facts of this case in the light of the settled legal position the conclusion becomes obvious that no conviction can be legally sustained without any credible evidence or material on record against the appellant - Order of framing a charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is palpably erroneous and unsustainable - It would be travesty of justice to compel the appellant to face a criminal trial without any credible material whatsoever - Consequently, the order of framing charge under section 306 IPC against the appellant is quashed and all proceedings pending against him are also set aside - Appeal allowed.
Judgment :-
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.1800 of 2008 dated 17.2.2009.
3. The appellant S.S. Chheena was a Security Officer at Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. This job was accepted by him after his retirement from the Indian Police Service (IPS). He is seriously aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar by which he had framed a charge against the appellant under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC).
4. Brief facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are as under:-
On 13.10.2003, a dispute arose between the son of the complainant, namely, Saurav Mahajan, deceased who was a final year student of the Law Department and Harminder Singh, a fellow student of the same class. The dispute was with regard to the theft of a mobile phone which came to the notice of M.D. Singh, the then Head of the Law Department on 13.10.2003, pursuant to which M.D. Singh asked both the students, i.e.,
Saurav Mahajan, deceased and Harminder Singh alias Montu to submit their versions of the incident in writing.
5. The deceased and Harminder Singh gave their written versions of the incident and thereafter M.D. Singh forwarded their versions to the University authorities for taking necessary action. Consequently, the enquiry was conducted on 13.10.2003 by the Security Officer of the University – the appellant herein. During the course of the enquiry, on 17.10.2003, the son of the complainant committed suicide by jumping in front of a train. Subsequently, during the search, a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of the deceased dated 16.10.2003. The suicide note is important for adjudicating and deciding this appeal. The said suicide note is reproduced as under:-
"SUICIDE NOTE
I am Saurav Mahajan a final year student of Department of Law of GNDU. Montu had levelled a false allegation upon me. I am very annoyed because a false allegation has been levelled upon me. I have a faith that this allegation is false, accused Montu and his accomplices will be arrested and I will be declared as innocent. The reason of my annoyance is that I am falsely involved as I did not commit any theft. A dying person will not speak falsely. I have not committed this theft.
According to me, the theft has been committed by Harminder Singh in connivance with his accomplices. Harminder Singh says that on the day when the Mobile was stolen, he was taking the test. I made request to Mr. Chhina to see as to whether he was engaged in the test or not? Or he had not completed the whole test, came out a little before the fixed time, and committed theft. Examination sheet of the said day of Harminder Singh be seen. Harminder Singh had admitted two things in the presence of M.D. Singh, HOD of the Law Department, i.e. (1) he had played a joke with me (2) Harminder Singh admitted that he had demanded money from me.
Chhina Sahib, M.D. Singh, while dying, I will not speak untrue. I have not committed any theft. Real thief is Montu. He has falsely involved my name. Harminder Singh cannot prove this at any cost because he is totally wrong. On the other hand, he has admitted that he had sold this Reliance set to his friends and has falsely leveled this allegation against me.
I request my uncle/aunt, mother/father to forgive me that I tried my best to fulfill their expected wishes but could not do the same because Harminder Singh has leveled false allegation against me. I want to say this thing again that I am innocent and request my mother/father that they may not make any complaint regarding my suicide. I will also say to Chhina Sahib even if they give justice and leave me but the people will have a suspicion about me. I am taking this step on account of my insult. Harminder Singh and his accomplices are responsible for my suicide or MD Singh who did not take into account my faith and without consulting me, has forward
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618.
State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73.
Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731.
Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.