JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Purohit, J.

The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist – Kamal Deep against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2024, passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar in Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2023, whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I^st Roorkee in Criminal Case No.873 of 2012 (New Criminal Case No.1114 of 2023) was dismissed, affirming his conviction under Section 309 IPC. By the said order, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee had convicted the revisionist for attempting to commit suicide and sentenced him to imprisonment till rising of the Court along with a fine of Rs.500/-, with a default stipulation of five days’ simple imprisonment.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 21.02.2011 at about 16:10 hours, Constable – Arpit Kumar Pandey, posted at Kotwali Mangalore, allegedly heard commotion from the upper floor of the building housing the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mangalore, and on reaching there with another Constable – Om Prakash, found the revisionist, a clerk in the Nagar Palika, having poured kerosene upon himself and holding a matchbox with the apparent intent to set himself ablaze. He was apprehended on the spot, and a plastic bottle containing kerosene and a matchbox were recovered. On this basis, Case Crime No.71 of 2011 under Section 309 IPC was registered at Kotwali Mangalore. The medical examination of the revisionist conducted the same day at 16:30 hours revealed no external injury or kerosene poisoning, though the doctor noted the smell of kerosene on his head and upper body. The revisionist was produced before the court the next day and granted bail. After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet on 12.10.2011 under Section 309 IPC, cognizance was taken, and charges were framed on 25.06.2013. The prosecution examined five witnesses, all of whom were either police personnel or employees of Nagar Palika Parishad, while the defence of the revisionist was that he had been falsely implicated as he had made complaints against the Chairman and other officials of the Nagar Palika regarding irregularities and was being pressurized to withdraw the same. The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted the revisionist, and the appellate court subsequently upheld the conviction, leading to the present revision.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the entire prosecution story is false and fabricated and has been initiated at the behest of certain officials of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Mangalore, against whom the revisionist had made written complaints regarding irregularities in office functioning. It is argued that to coerce him to withdraw such complaints, the officials connived with the local police and falsely implicated the revisionist in this case under Section 309 IPC. The learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident, even if accepted at its face value, does not constitute an “attempt” to commit suicide but at best reflects a stage of mere preparation, which is not punishable under law. It is argued that the revisionist was only found standing with a matchbox in his hand and had not lit it or committed any overt act to end his life, hence the essential ingredients of an “attempt” were wholly absent.

4. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the prosecution evidence suffers from serious infirmities and contradictions. He submits that all the prosecution witnesses except for one, are Police personnel who have repeated the same version in a mechanical manner, while the only independent witness – Shahid Ali, a fellow clerk of the revisionist, did not support the prosecution and categorically stated that no such act was committed by the revisionist in his presence. The medical evidence also completely demolishes the prosecution version since no burn injuries or signs of p