Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 3351
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJAN GUPTA, J.
Jagdish Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Another - Respondent
CRR No. 3347 of 2013 (O&M)
Decided On : 19-01-2016
For the Respondents:Shilesh Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
For an offence under section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of intention or instigation on the part of the accused to abet the suicide.
Headnote:
Abetment - Criminal Revision - IPC 306, 506, 120-B - The court discussed the provisions of IPC sections 306, 506, and 120-B in the context of abetment and concluded that there was no evidence to show that the accused had intended or engineered the suicide, and thus the charge under section 306 IPC was unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved allegations of abetment of suicide against the petitioners, who were accused of relieving the deceased from his duty as Centre Superintendent and demanding money, leading to the deceased's suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to show that the accused had intended or engineered the suicide, and thus set aside the order framing charge under section 306 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had abetted the suicide in a manner that would attract provisions of Section 306 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for an offence under section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of intention or instigation on the part of the accused, and without such evidence, the charge was unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order framing charge under section 306 IPC, and allowed the revision petitions.
RAJAN GUPTA, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two Criminal Revision petitions i.e. CRR-3347 of 2013 and CRR-3315 of 2013, filed by petitioners Jagdish Singh and Rita Sharma respectively, against order dated 21.09.2013, passed by the trial court, whereby charges have been framed against them under sections 306, 506, 120-B IPC.
2. Case was registered on the statement of Sandeep Kumar Markan, a teacher by profession, against the petitioners as well as other accused namely, Pardeep Singla and Sukha. He stated that on 6.9.2010, his father Harmesh Kumar Markan, a Lecturer of Economics in Government Senior Secondary School, Sandaur, was deputed as Centre Superintendent for conducting the Board Examination. On 20.9.2010, flying squad visited the school for checking and asked the teachers to show their school relieving certificates. Two teachers showed their certificates but one of them went to his house to bring the certificate but did not return. After flying squad left, accused closed the school and asked father of the complainant to go home. On reaching home, he narrated the entire episode to the complainant. Same day, press reporters came to know about the incident and started threatening father of the complainant on his mobile phone. They alleged that examination had been conducted by deputing teachers in an illegal manner. They also started demanding money. Then accused Pardeep Singla and Sukha came to their house and demanded money, but they refused. In the meantime, petitioners sent a fax to DGSC levelling certain allegations against his father. Father of the complainant could not bear the shock and on 24.9.2010 at about 11.30 A.M. he consumed some poisonous substance. He was taken to DMC, Ludhiana where he expired on 26.9.2010. A suicide note was also recovered from pocket of the deceased. On the basis of this statement a case under sections 306, 506, 120-B IPC was registered. Investigation ensued. All the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the competent court.
3. The accused were thereafter heard by the trial court on the question of framing of charge. Vide order dated 21.09.2013, the court ordered framing of charge against all the five accused under sections 306, 506, 120-B IPC. Charges were framed against the accused on the same day.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has posed a serious challenge to the order framing charge on the ground that no sanction to prosecute the petitioners was obtained, which is mandatory under section 197 Cr.P.C. Moreover, there is no direct allegations against the petitioners. In the suicide note, deceased levelled allegations only against the press-reporters. Thus, no offence is made out against the petitioners.
Learned State counsel has opposed the plea.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
6. The question that arises before this court is whether petitioners abetted the crime in a manner that it would attract provisions of Section 306 IPC. Before his death, deceased left a letter, contents whereof are as under:-
"Harmesh Markan
24/9
It is informed to Deputy Commissioner Sangrur, D.S.P. Malerkotla, S.D.M. Malerkotla that Principal Rita Sharma Girls School Malerkotla and Jagdish Singh Lecturer (Girls) School Malerkotla has relieved me from the duty as Centre Superintendent on S.A. Jain School Centre No.4 without mentioning any reason. I have been blemished in the society, due to this reason I have been forced to commit suicide. Except from this, News Channel Reporter Pardeep Singla, Sukha Singh, Ashok Joshi headmaster S.A. Jain School were levelling false allegations on telephone and demanded money on dated 22.9.2010. Every reporter of channel had demanded RS. 5,000/- to 10,000/-. Due to this I have consumed medicine under compelled reasons. I have no grudge and tension from any members of my family or any other relative. Nobody is at fault. Therefore appropriate proceedings
