Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 303
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh
DEEPAK JAIN & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR. – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 409 of 2009
Decided on : 27.06.2013
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Bhandari, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1: Ms. Mamta Bisht, AGA
Headnote:(A) Suicide — Abetment for — Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing — Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained — There should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the later — Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other — Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect — Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any strait jacket formula in dealing with such cases — Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. (Para 4)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 306 — Offence punishable under — Requirements — There has to be clear mens rea on the part of accused — And it requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option — And that act must be intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. (Para 5)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 306 — Offence punishable under — Held — If a person commits suicide thinking that his family would not be in a position to arrange the fee then no fault can be attributed to the college authority — Instant case, is not a case where mens rea on the part of petitioners can be attributed knowing well that deceased would commit suicide if exorbitant fee was demanded — Thus, offence u/s 306 IPC, not made out — Criminal proceedings, quashed. (Para 8)
¼v½ vkRegR;k ds fy, nq”izsfjr djuk & nq”izsj.k ,d ekufld izfrfØ;k gS fdlh O;fDr dks mdlkus ds fy, ;k tkucw>dj ,slk djus ds fy, mldh enn djuk & vfHk;qDr ds Hkkx ij cxSj fl) fd, fd mldk vkRegR;k ds fy, mdlkus ;k enn esa dksbZ gkFk Fkk] mldh nks”kflf) iq”V ugha] ftlds fy, vko’;d gS fd vfHk;qDr dk vk’; Fkk vkRegR;k ds fy, HkM+dkuk] mdlkuk ;k mÙksftr djuk & gj O;fDr dk vkRegR;k djus dk izfr:i nwljs ls vyx gksrk gS & izR;sd O;fDr dk vknj vkSj lEeku dk viuk vfHkizk; gksrk gS & blfy, bu oknksa esa dksbZ Hkh Strait Jacket Formula yxkuk vlEHko gksrk gS & gj okn dks mlds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fu.khZr djuk pkfg,A
¼izLrj 4½
¼c½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 306 & n.Muh; vijk/k & vko’;drk,¡ & vfHk;qDr ds Hkkx ij Li”V vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr gksuh pkfg, & vkSj blds fy, lfØ; o izR;{k ÑR; gksuk pkfg, tks e`rd dks fcuk fodYi vkRegR;k ds fy, mdlk, & vkSj ;g ÑR; e`rd dks ,slh fLFkfr esa /kdsyus ds vk’; ls fd;k tkrk gS fd og vkRegR;k dkfjr djsA ¼izLrj 5½
¼l½ Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk] 1860] /kkjk 306 & n.Muh; vijk/k & /kkfjr & fd vxj dksbZ O;fDr vkRegR;k djrk gS ;g lkspdj fd mldk ifjokj Qhl nsus dh fLFkfr esa ugha gS rc blesa dkWyst izkf/kdj.k dh dksbZ =qfV ugha & izLrqr okn] ;g okn ugha tgk¡ isVh’kulZ ds Hkkx ij vkijkf/kd eu%fLFkfr fo’ks”kr% gks vkSj dkfjr gqbZ ;g Kkr gksrs gq, Hkh fd e`rd vkRegR;k dj ysxk vxj vR;kf/kd Qhl ekaxh xbZ Fkh & blfy, u/s 306, IPC vijk/k fl) ugha & nkf.Md dk;Zokfg;ksa dks c[kkZLr fd;k x;kA
¼izLrj 8½
Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral)
Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the Criminal Case No. 3889 of 2007, State vs. Rajeev Jain and others under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, pursuant to the FIR/Case Crime No. 4491 of 2006 under Section 306 IPC.
2. As per the FIR, Tejpal Singh took admission in B.Ed. course in the month of May, 2006 in Arihand College of Education, Baredhi Rajputan, Roorkee, District Haridwar; at the time of seeking admission, petitioners herein, being office bearer of the Management Committee and College told Tej Pal Singh and his father, informant herein, that they would have to pay Rs. 70,000/- towards the annual fee for getting admission under the Management Quota; Rs. 53,000/- were paid to the College at the time of taking admission while balance ‘17,000/- were agreed to be paid till June, 2006; when demand draft of Rs. 17,000/- was handed over to Mahesh Sharma on 26.06.2006, he refused to accept the demand draft and asked for Rs. 90,000/-; thereafter Tej Pal Singh came back to Kashipur at his residence and he was looking depressed; informant and other family members did counselling of Tej Pal Singh and told him that extra money, as asked by the college, would be arranged very shortly, therefore, Tej Pal Singh should go back to the college; on this Tej Pal Singh went back to his college at Roorkee; thereafter Tej Pal Singh was told by the petitioners to inform his family members to arrange Rs. 97,000/-; again Tej Pal Singh came back on 08.08.2005; informant again did counselling of Tej Pal Singh and told him that very soon he would arrange the money and he (informer) would go to the college to speak to the Management; meanwhile, in the inter intervening night of 15/16 August, 2006, Tej Pal Singh committed suicide by consuming poison; Tej Pal Singh left suicide note to the effect that petitioners are responsible for his death.
3. If FIR or criminal proceedings are assailed by the accused at the initial stage either under Section 482 of the Code or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court must examine as to whether from the contents and material collected, prima facie offence is made out, justifying the prosecution. If prima facie case is not made out, this Court must come forward to quash the same keeping in mind no innocent should be troubled / burdened to face a trial for the offence which on the face of it is not made out.
4. Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of S.S. Cheema vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another, reported in (2010)12 SCC, 190 has held as under:
“27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words “instigation” and “goading”. The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person’s suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacked formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to
