CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 06, 2008
Kewal Krishan and another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners, Kewal Krishan and Angrej Lal, approached
this Court by way of this revision petition, impugning the order
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, framing a charge
against them under Section 306 IPC. Angrej Lal has died during the
pendency of this revision petition and accordingly the present
revision and the proceedings pending against him would abate.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed this
petition qua petitioner No.1, Kewal Krishan. One Parma Singh is the
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 2 }:
deceased, who committed suicide. There is one decree against one
Saun Singh, who died and is survived by four legal heirs, one of
which was Parma Singh. Parma Singh had taken his life by
committing suicide. This suicide is being attributed to an act of
abetment on the part of the petitioner.
A perusal of the allegations in the FIR would show that
Gurtej Singh, brother of Parma Singh, has lodged this FIR, alleging
that his father Saun Singh had sold the crop to Commission Agent
i.e. Angrej Ram and his father owned a loan of huge amount to
Angrej Ram. He allegedly paid this loan by selling his tractor and
thereafter stopped selling his crop through Angrej Ram. After the
death of father of the complainant, petitioners, Kewal Krishan and
Angrej Lal (since deceased) filed a civil suit for recovery of loan
before the Court at Mansa. The Court had issued warrant of
attachment. The petitioners had gone to the village of the
complainant in connection with attachment but no one came forward
to give any bid in this regard. The complainant and his family appear
to have filed an appeal in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Mansa, which was then pending. It is alleged that the petitioners had
given false complaint against the complainant. It is further alleged
that whenever the petitioners met the complainant, they talked for
selling their land. On this count, it is alleged that Parma Singh,
brother of the complainant, stated that he was fed up living the life in
this manner and expressed that it was better to die. On 30.6.1999,
the complainant heard the noise from his brother and on going to the
place, found that Parma Singh was on fire. The complainant made an
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 3 }:
attempt to extinguish the fire but Parma Singh died. It is in this
background that this case for abetment was registered against the
petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
allegations contained in the FIR would, by no stretch of imagination,
lead to abetment on the part of the petitioner for commission of an
offence under Section 306 IPC. As per the counsel, it is a case
where the complainant owed a huge amount of money, which they
had taken as a loan and a case of suicide of one of the brother of the
complainant has just been pressed into service to escape from the
liability of paying this loan. Counsel would say that there is no
material to give any indication of abetment on the part of the
petitioner to commit an offence under Section 306 IPC. The Court
has accordingly not applied its mind to the material on record while
framing the charge.
Learned State counsel, however, would contend that
there is no infirmity seen in the impugned order, which would call for
interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
I have considered the facts and the submissions made
before me.
No doubt, the law is well settled on the aspect that at the
stage of framing a charge, the evidence is not to be appreciated to
see if it is sufficient for conviction or not and even a prima-facie
evidence and material would be enough to frame a charge. At the
same time, the courts just can not frame a charge without
appreciating if there is any material which would prima-facie reveal
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 4 }:
commission of offence. The petitioners have been saddled with the
liability to defend the charge under Section 306 IPC, one of whom is
no more.
The charge for abetment to suicide would be made out
only in case the prosecution was able to collect material showing
abetment. For the purpose of abetment, the requirement of Section
107 IPC is to be seen. This Section provides that a person abets the
doing of a thing who instigates any person to do that thing or
engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy
for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, or in order to the doing of that thing or
intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that
thing, then he is alleged to have abetted the said offence. There is,
thus, requirement of a direct nexus within the act complaint and the
ultimately effect. The act complaint is filing a suit for recovery of loan.
The abetment on the part of the petitioner would be in case there is
some direct nexus between the act complaint and the ultimately
effect. The ultimate effect is suicide. There is no material in the
possession of the prosecution, which would show that this act of
suicide was on account of any act or action on the part of the
petitioners to seek recovery of loan. If the father of the deceased
owed some money to the petitioners, they have exercised their legal
right for recovery of that money by filing a civil suit. Availing a legal
remedy available to a person can not be termed as instigation or a
conspiracy for doing an illegal act or omission or any aiding act or
illegal omission. This act on the part of the petitioner could not
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 5 }:
expose him to liability of abetment to suicide. Merely because the
recovery suit was filed, it can not be said that the petitioner had
abetted the late deceased Parma Singh to commit suicide. From the
facts and the evidence as collected, no offence of abetment as
defined under as defined under Section 107 IPC of suicide
committed by the deceased is made out. The Trial Court, as such,
has not applied valid consideration to the material on record and the
law on the subject to frame a charge against the petitioner in this
case.
Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on
judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurdeep Singh Vs. State
of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 266 and Surender Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana, 1999 (1) RCR (Criminal) 558. In the case of
Gurdeep Singh (supra), the person has committed suicide when
petitioner in that case had tried to have cardinal intercourse with the
deceased. This Court viewed that deceased might have felt ashamed
on this but it would not lead to an abetment to commit suicide. In the
case of Surender Kumar (supra), the allegation was that a gold chain
had been stolen or had not been counted for by an employee or
apprentice. Attempt to search and interrogate him was made. One or
two slaps were also given by the employer to his servant. Finding
that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner therein had
ever goaded, urged or excited the deceased to jump from a running
train, the revision against the charge for abetment to suicide as
framed in this case was set-aside. The present case appears to be
on much better pedestal. Here there is no direct act alleged against
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.1650 OF 2002 :{ 6 }:
the petitioner. It is only by implication that the petitioner is sought to
be involved for abetting the deceased to commit suicide. As already
noticed, taking of legal remedy for recovery of a loan, the petitioner
can not be saddled with allegation of abetment to suicide. The
charge, as framed, as such, can not be sustained.
The revision petition is accordingly accepted. The order
framing charge and the subsequent proceedings, therefore, are set-
aside.
November 06,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE