2007 Supreme(P&H) 1711
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Jindal, J.
Ravinder Pal Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 2001,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
Abetment of suicide-Expression-to goad-is to do some thing to urge, and to provoke-Explained.
Headnote:(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 305-Abetment of suicide of child or insane persons-Basic ingredients are:-
(i) The commission of suicide by a person.
(ii) The person, who committed the suicide, was under 18 years of age or was insane, or delirious, or idiot in a state of intoxication.
(iii) That the accused abetted the commission of such suicide. (Para 7)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Section 305-Abetment of suicide-Expression-to goad-is to do some thing to urge, and to provoke-Explained Interalia-
i) The basic spirit behind all the words i.e. to goad, to urge, to provoke, to aid, to instigate or encourage, lies in the actions or omissions which the accused did by words or gestures so as to bring the person abetted to such a stage and under such circumstances, that he could think nothing more except his end and he was so compelled by the circumstances, that he could do nothing else but to end his life.
ii) If abettor had called abuses; teased someone; gave some adverse remarks at a single occasion; demanded whatever was due to him or put forward his right or claim against him, the case does not fall within the purview of abetment. (Para 11)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Section 305-Abetment of suicide-Witnesses did not testify physical assault-Witnesses talked of only obscene activities or the accused caught hold of arm of victim-Mere catching hold of arm of deceased by accused does not amount to abetment of suicide. (Para 14)
A.N.Jindal, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two Appeals No. 341-SB of 2001, 904-SB of 2001 and Revision No. 1252 of 2001 arising out of the judgment dated 3.3.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide which, the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was convicted under Section 305 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
2. The case relates to the death of a school girl namely Virpal Kaur aged about 18 years, who committed suicide on account of the alleged abetment made by the accused.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that Virpal Kaur was the student of 9th standard in Government High School, Raiya and accused was teacher there. On 28.7.1998, Vir Pal Kaur had gone to school as usual. The accused indulged in indecent/obscene activities with Vir Pal Kaur and also threatened to defame her and get her ousted from the school and he would not allow her to marry anywhere. After school hours, she went to the house and disclosed the facts to her father, Avtar Singh PW1, who consoled her and told her that he would complain against the accused while going to the school the next day. On the next day i.e. 29.7.1998, in the morning at about 6:00 a.m. Vir Pal Kaur did not get up. On inquiry, it was found that she had committed suicide. The matter was taken to the Panchayat. Ultimately, Avtar Singh PW1, got registered the case against the accused vide formal FIR Ex. PR under Section 305 IPC. Investigation was commenced. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.
4. In order to seek the conviction of the accused prosecution examined Avtar Singh PW1, Roop Singh PW2(maternal uncle of the deceased), Surinder Singh PW3, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, PW4, SI Barjinder Kumar PW5.
5. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused-appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded his false implication. He further stated that Nirmal Singh was a student of 10th class in their school. On 28.7.1998, Vir Pal Kaur was seen in an objectionable condition with Gurjant Singh by him. Then, he snubbed Vir Pal Kaur and asked her to bring her father to the school. Vir Pal Kaur was further told that she would be expelled from the school due to the alleged activities. When she reached her house, she was reprimanded by her parents. While failing to bear the insult, she committed suicide and he was falsely implicated in this case. In defence, he examined Dalbir Singh DW1, who was incharge of allotment of room at Gurudawara Seesganj Delhi and he proved the entry Ex. DA showing that room No. 28 was allotted to one Surinder Singh and he was accompanied by two persons.
6. Ultimately, the trial ended in conviction. Hence, this appeal.
7. The basic ingredients to complete the offence under Section 305 IPC are as under:
(i) The commission of suicide by a person.
(ii) The person, who committed the suicide, was under 18 years of age or was insane, or delirious, or idiot in a state of intoxication.
(iii) That the accused abetted the commission of such suicide.
8. On bare perusal of the aforesaid constituents, the main constituent to bring the case within the purview of aforesaid section is that the victim should have been below 18 years or should have been insane, delirious, Idiot or in a state of intoxication. If it is so proved then the prosecution is to prove the element of abetment on the part of the accused. But in the instant case prosecution has proved on record that she was below 18 years at the time of incident. The incident took place on 28.7.1998, whereas as per school record, she was born on 16.3.1983. No evidence to the contrary has been brought on record to establish that she was above 18 years of age. As such, the primary constituent for commission of the offence stand answered in positive.
9. Now, coming to the second constituent i.e. abetment, I am to reiterate the meaning of abetment. The Supreme C