IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

237 Date of decision: 25.02.2025 OMBIR ...APPLICANT V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate as Legal Aid Cousnel for the applicant.

Mr. Brijesh Sharma, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advcoate for respondents No.2 to 5.

****

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The present application for leave to appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby respondents were acquitted in FIR No. 199 dated 15.05.2014 under sections 306/34 IPC.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case at hand is that a case was registered on the statement made by the father of the deceased, that his daughter Meenu, whose marriage was solemnized with Shamsher, i.e. respondent no.2, about 9 years back, was subjected to harassment from her husband and in-laws for money for purchasing a plot at Sonepat. About three months prior to the unfortunate incident, he had brought his daughter back to his village. She lived with him for about two months, and returned to her matrimonial home only after assurance from her in- laws that she would not be harassed on account of dowry. Yet, there was no change in her circumstances. On 14.05.2014, she called father, as also her sister Manju, and narrated that she was fed up of the dowry harassment and beatings that she was being subjected to and did not want to live anymore. The very next day the complainant-applicant was informed that his daughter had died after consuming some poisonous substance. Thereafter, investigation was carried out and the accused, i.e., Meenu’s husband and in-laws, were made to face trial under section 306 read with section 34 of the IPC, but were acquitted of all charges vide the impugned judgment dated 07.02.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court committed a grave error in disregarding the fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home, that too under compelling circumstances. It was also wrongly assumed by the learned trial Court that the accused had no reason to harass the deceased for money to buy a plot in Sonepat. Besides, the evidence of prosecution witnesses fully supported the case that the deceased committed suicide being upset from the harassment for dowry that she was being subjected to. Thus the impugned order of acquittal deserves to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.s 2 to 5 contends that allegations made against them in the FIR as well as statements brought on record are vague and general, and do not constitute an offence under section 306 IPC. Infact, it was the respondent no.2, husband of the deceased, who had taken her to the hospital. Thus, there is no prima facie case against them to be convicted, as the key ingredients of mens rea and active role in incitement, required to make out a case under section 306, IPC are absolutely lacking.

5. Learned state Counsel submits that the respondents were acquitted by the trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and evidence on record. The prosecution had failed to establish the allegations of harassment beyond reasonable doubt or that the respondents had played any active role in the abetment of suicide by the deceased.

6. Heard the contentions advanced by the learned counsels and perused the judicial file.

7. At the outset, it would be apposite to discuss the offence of abetment of suicide as contained under section 306 of the IPC; to establish which, the prosecution must prove that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, has played an active role in the same. The Supreme Court in “Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC

3679, while expatiating on the said provision, observed thus:

“23. The act of abetment must be explicitly demonstrated through actions or behaviors of the accused that directly cont