Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Radhey Shyam Garg & others - Appellants
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2009
Decided on : 17-11-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374, 154, 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306, 34 - Committed Suicide - Harassed and Mentally Tortured – Appeal against Conviction - Complainant alleged that her deceased son committed suicide after being harassed and mentally tortured by appellants-accused – It is required to be established on record that deceased committed suicide after being instigated and abated by accused. [Para 26]
Finding of the Court: Hon’ble apex Court has held that victim committed suicide allegedly for being reprimanded for repeatedly bunking classes - Reading of victim’s suicide note shows that same was penned by immature and hypersensitive mind, thus act of accused being teacher would not ordinarily induce a circumstances to a student to commit suicide - Alleged incident of altercation, which ultimately led to deceased to commit suicide had happened and most importantly before committing suicide, parties had already entered into compromise, thereby agreeing to live happily and peacefully in future - Moreover, this Court finds that there is no evidence suggestive of fact that deceased was meted out with harassment by appellants-accused just before his death, which in given facts and circumstances was otherwise required to prove guilt, if any, of appellants-accused - Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed are quashed and set-aside.
Result: Ordered accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Instant appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of conviction dated 23.06.2009 and order of sentence dated 27.06.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.1-S/7 of 2009, whereby learned court while holding appellant Nos. 1 to 4(hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) guilty of their having committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment of six month.
2. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for proper adjudication the case at hand are that on the basis of statement made by complainant Smt. Neeru Shamra (PW-1) under Section 154 Cr.P.C, wherein she alleged that her deceased son Gaurav Rattan committed suicide after being harassed and mentally tortured by the appellants-accused, police lodged the FIR Ex.PW7/C against the appellants-accused. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 8.05.2008, appellant-accused No.2, Rishav Garg stopped his bike in front of the shop of one Hem Raj in Dharampur Bazar, at about 7.45 PM. Deceased, who was son of Hem Raj wanted to close his shop and with a view to take his scooter inside, asked appellant-accused No.2, Rishav Garg to remove his bike. Since appellant-accused No.2 refused to remove the bike, some altercation took place interse deceased Gaurav Rattan and appellant-accused No.2. Accused No.2 made telephonic call to his uncle, Ved Garg accused No.4, who accompanied by 4-5 persons reached on the spot in a vehicle and they all were allegedly carrying with them rods etc. People gathered on the spot tried to pacify them. However, appellant-accused No.4, Ved Garg extended threats to deceased Gaurav Rattan. Other shop keepers in the nearby vicinity persuaded both the parties to arrive at a compromise and thereafter both the parties left the place. However, next morning at 7.30 AM, accused No.4, Ved Garg came near the shop of deceased and asked him to come out, but since mother of the deceased (PW-1) did not permit deceased to come out and took him to first floor, accused No.4 while extending threats that he will not spare the deceased left the spot. During day time deceased lodged a complaint at police Station accompanied by his two friends where accused persons were already present. Both the parties arrived at a compromise before the police. However, on 12.5.2008, accused No.2, Rishav Garg again came to the shop of Hem Raj, father of the deceased and extended threats that he will not spare the deceased and would spend money for that purpose. Again on 15th May 2008, both the parties were called by the Superintendent of Police, Solan, where allegedly deceased was scolded/reprimanded by police official as well as accused present in the police Station. Deceased Gaurav Rattan was not satisfied with the conduct of the police and he was also afraid of the accused as they had extended threats to him. Such fact was revealed by him to his sister, who was working at Shimla. As per prosecution story, deceased used to tell his sister that every day when he visited the bazaar one or the other accused raises threats to him, thereby he used to remain tense. On 24th May 2008, deceased returned home at 10.30 PM and he after having finished his meal gave telephonic call to his sister at Shimla allegedly telling therein her sister that it would be his last talk with her as he was fed up with life. Sister of deceased Kumari Madhuri (PW-2) gave telephonic information to her mother (PW-1), who accompanied by her husband, went to the room of deceased, but found the same bolted from inside. Complainant (PW-1) called Uncle of the deceased and tried to get the door opened by calling the deceased. However there being no re
‘Spare the rod and spoil child’ an old saying may have lost its relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to child is not recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school aut....
Section 306 of IPC which reads as abetment of suicide.
To establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear intent and direct actions by the accused that compel the victim to commit suicide; emotional distress alone is insufficient.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding, which was absent in this case.
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear proof of active instigation and direct acts leading to suicide is necessary; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
The court held that mere allegations of harassment do not establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC without direct evidence of instigation or encouragement.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of the accused's intention to instigate the suicide, which was absent in this case.
Abetment of suicide – Positive act of instigation is a crucial element of abetment – Element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred, instead it must be evident and explicitly discernible –....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
