Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 311
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Krishna - Applicant
Versus
State of Punjab and Others - Respondents
CRM-A-2377-MA of 2017
Decided On : 06-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr. Sachit Khurana.
The court emphasized the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC and the scope for interference in appeal against acquittal.
Headnote:
Abetment - Suicide - The court analyzed the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC and the scope for interference in appeal against acquittal. The court found that the deposition of the complainant and her son did not prove abetment of suicide, and concluded that no case was made out for interference.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a complaint alleging that her husband committed suicide and that the accused were responsible for his death. The trial court acquitted the accused after considering the evidence and concluding that the allegation of abetment to commit suicide was not proved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deposition of the complainant and her son did not prove abetment of suicide. The trial court's conclusion was deemed plausible and not suffering from perversity, leading to the dismissal of the application for grant of leave to appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused were responsible for the suicide of the deceased and whether the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: The essential ingredients of the offense under Section 306 IPC were analyzed, and the scope for interference in appeal against acquittal was considered. The court emphasized that interference in an appeal against acquittal would only be called for if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence.
Final Decision: The application for grant of leave to appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
1. This is an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment acquitting the accused in Complaint Case No. 22T/9.5.2012/17.4.2014.
2. The facts shorn off unnecessary details are that the applicant filed a complaint stating that her husband-Ramesh Kumar Arora (deceased) committed suicide on 9.3.2010. A suicide note was recovered from the dickey of the scooter of the deceased bearing registration No. PB -11D-0349. As per the contents of the suicide note, the accused were responsible for the death of the deceased. The deceased committed suicide by jumping in front of the train. In the FIR registered, cancellation report filed by the police was accepted and thereafter the complaint was filed.
3. The trial court summoned the accused, after considering the facts and appreciating the evidence adduced concluded that the allegation of abetment to commit suicide was not proved. While acquitting the accused, following aspects were considered :
(i) As per the deposition of the complainant and her son, the deceased was under tension as the accused, ( i.e. the subordinate staff in State Bank of Patiala, Nabha Branch where the deceased was Chief Manager) were not properly discharging their official duties. Further that inspecting team of Reserve Bank of India recovered counterfeit currency worth Rs.14,100/- from the cash chest.
(ii) The deceased used to work late till night at home to complete the work.
(iii) No motive was proved for abetment of suicide.
(iv) The allegation of conspiracy hatched by the accused against the deceased was not substantiated.
(v) The deceased had not to record Annual Confidential Reports of the accused as also that non-performance of official duties by the accused was never reported to the higher authorities.
(vi) The allegation that counterfeit currency was planted by the accused in cash chest was not taken to the logical end. The deceased had neither reported to the higher authorities nor got registered an FIR, though the successor of the deceased got an FIR lodged.
(vii) The suicide note neither gave any detail with regard to abetment by the accused nor the reason for abetment. It only mentioned that subordinate staff along with RBI official were conspiring against the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the lower court erred in acquitting the accused and the deposition of the complainant and her son was not appreciated in a proper manner.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
6. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been dealt in M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315. The same are reproduced below :
“8. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”
7. The scope for interference in appeal against acquittal is well settled. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal held :
“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 (1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.”
8. The conclusion arrived at by the trial cour
