Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
State of Haryana - Appellant
Versus
Rani Devi and others - Respondents
CRM-A-1616-MA of 2015 Alongwith CRA-AS-100-2015, Anil Kumar & State of Haryana and others
Decided on: 11.12.2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Bharadwaj
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea and active instigation in abetment of suicide cases, and the parameters for the power of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Headnote:
Abetment of Suicide - Criminal Law - Section 306 IPC - Section 107 IPC - Section 406 IPC - Section 420 IPC - Section 506 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the judgment of acquittal in a case under Section 306 IPC, where the deceased was alleged to have committed suicide due to harassment and threats by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ingredients of Section 306 in terms of Section 107 of IPC were not made out, and there was a lack of incriminating evidence and mens rea. The court also emphasized the importance of mens rea and active instigation in abetment of suicide cases.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of evidence, the application of abetment of suicide laws, and the power of the Appellate Court to unsettle the order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of mens rea and active instigation in abetment of suicide cases, and reiterated the parameters for the power of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.
CRM-31806-2015 and CRM-31791-2015
Both the applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals are allowed and delay of 21 days and 58 days respectively, is condoned.
CRM-A-1616-MA-2015 and CRA-AS-100-2015
1. The present appeals are preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Court, Kurukshetra in FIR No. 7 dated 12.01.2012 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar.
2. This common order shall dispose of both CRM-A-1616-MA-2015 and CRA-AS-100-2015 as they arise from the same factual background. For the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CRM-A-1616-MA-2105.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-accused Rani Devi moved a complaint under Section 406, 420, 506 IPC before the police against Jagan Nath(deceased), father of the appellant-complainant Anil Kumar for recovery of an amount of Rs 6, 30,000/-. Panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute where Jagan Nath denied having borrowed such amount. The panchayat was scheduled to reconvene on 12.01.2012. On that day, Jagan Nath went for a walk at around 7-8 AM but did not return. The appellant-complainant and his associates went to look for Jagan Nath and at around 4:30 PM, found out that the dead body of Jagan Nath is lying in the panchayati land of village Sanwala. The appellant-complainant, along with his uncles Amar Nath and Ram Charan, went to the said place and saw the dead body of his father. There were no external injuries on the person of the deceased, however, on checking his pant pockets, two suicide notes were recovered whereby the respondents-accused were made responsible for death of the deceased.
4. On completion of necessary formalities of the investigation, challan was presented against accused Rani Devi only. The names of the remaining accused(respondents 2-6) were kept in column 2 as they were found innocent on investigation. However, they were later summoned as additional accused vide order dated 19.09.2013.
5. The learned trial Court, after assessing the material on record, charged all the accused jointly for committing an offence under Section 306 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses. The accused examined 6 witnesses in their defence.
CONTENTIONS
7. Learned State counsel assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned trial Court has erred in its assessment of the facts and circumstances. The suicide notes recovered from the person of the deceased categorically mentions that he had loaned Rs. 3,00,000/- to the respondent-accused Rani Devi seven months ago and since he was demanding his money back, she had been blackmailing him. The deceased also mentioned that he was being harassed and threatened by respondent accused Malkeet Singh, Head Constable in connivance with Rani Devi. Due to this harassment, the deceased consumed poison and died by suicide.
8. Further, the learned trial Court misinterpreted the statement of PW10- Dr. Satish Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer(Documents), FSL, Madhuban who had opined that the writing signatures on the suicide note duly matched with the standard signatures. Undue consideration has been given to the fact that no pen or ink was recovered from the spot, as the same becomes redundant once the handwriting expert has opined that the signature were freely inscribed. Therefore, it is well established that the suicide notes were in fact written by the deceased.
9. He further contends that filing of a civil suit and complaint no. 44 of 2013 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra by Rani Devi and summoning of appellant-complainant Anil Kumar in the same, cannot be the cause for death of the deceased by suicide. There is ample evidence on record to satisfy the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC and to convict Rani Devi under Section 306 of IPC.
OBSERVATIONS A
