The court established that the appellants' continuous conduct and abusive language led to the deceased's suicide, constituting abetment under Section 306 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated13.10.2021 passed by the court of Third Additional District & Sesions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2015, State of Uttarakhand v. Sardar Gurjeet Singh & another (“the case”).

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for an additional period of six months.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows. The appellants and PW 1 Parmajeet Singh (“the informant”) are neighbours. Both had constructed houses as per the approved plan. The appellants started raising constructions in their open space to construct staircase. Once constructed, it would have obstructed the air and light to PW 1 Paramjeet Singh and his family. PW 1 Paramjeet Singh, the informant, filed Original Suit No. 249 of 2014, Paramjeet Singh v. Gurjeet Singh in the court of Civil Judge, Haridwar (“Original Suit”). In the month of June, during vacations of the Civil Courts, the appellants again started the construction w.e.f. 17.06.2014. On 18.06.2014, PW 1 Paramjeet Singh approached the City Magistrate (“CM”) and the Haridwar Development Authority (“the HDA”) for stopping the construction, but the construction was not stopped by the appellants. Instead, they expedited the construction. The deceased Paramjeet Kaur, who is the wife of PW 1 Paramjeet Singh requested the appellants to stop the construction, but they did not stop it.

PW 1 Paramjeet Singh again on 20.06.2014 approached the CM for stopping the construction. When construction was not stopped, again on 25.06.2014 at about 12 in the noon, PW 1 Paramjeet visited the HDA and informed that after constructing the wall, now the appellants have started raising staircase. In the meantime, the deceased Paramjeet Kaur, who was at home, also requested the appellants that “you have already constructed wall. Now, do not construct staircase”. At it, according to the case, both the appellants, abused Paramjeet Kaur and told her “we have spoken at every place, therefore our work would not be stopped. Now instead of telling us not to construct, you better die in Ganges by drowning. Your husband would also die thereafter”. Due to this utterance, an altercation ensued. The neighbours intervened and sent the deceased Paramjeet Kaur to her house. After a while, again the deceased Paramjeet Kaur came at the house of the appellants. Both the appellants then told her “now we understand that you are going to die”. As per the prosecution case, thereafter Paramjeet Kaur set herself ablaze. When PW 1 Paramjeet Singh was at the HDA office, he came to know about the incident. Deceased Paramjeet Kaur was admitted in hospital. She succumbed to the injuries on 27.06.2014. PW 1 lodged an FIR. Based on it, Case Crime No. 446 of 2014 under Section 306 IPC was lodged against the appellants and the investigation proceeded.

4. In fact, when PW 1 Paramjeet Singh reached his house, he had also found a suicide note written by the deceased Paramjeet Kaur. The suicide note was given along with FIR, which was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer (“the IO”) on 27.06.2014. On 27.06.2014, the inquest of the deceased Paramjeet Kaur was prepared. On the same day, her post mortem was conducted. According to the postmortem report, the death was caused due to shock due to ante mortem burn injuries.

5. The IO prepared the site plan of the place of incident. He also took into custody some sample writings of the deceased Paramjeet Kaur. The suicide note and the admitted handwriting of the deceased were sent for forensic examination and the report confirmed that both the handwritings are of one and the same person.

6. After investigation, the IO submitted chargesheet under Section 306 IPC against both the appellants.

7. On 24.06.2019, charge under S