AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.C. Khulbe, J
This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated
06.04.2004, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2003, whereby the said court has convicted the
accused/appellants Asha Devi @ Sharda Pandey and Anil Kumar Balodi under section 306 of I.P.C. Each one of them has been sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that PW-1 Deep Chandra Pandey submitted information with Police Station Baijnath, Bageshwar on 08.08.2003 with
the allegation that his elder brother Madan Mohan Pandey, who was in Indian Army came on leave on 26.07.2003. After three days his wife Sharda
Pandey left her house on 29.07.2003. His brother Madan Mohan Pandey is searching his wife. On 3.08.2003 in the morning, when the informant was
going towards Ram Mandir Street Garur and found the dead body of Madan Mohan at his house in a suspicious conditions. Anil Kumar Balodi
abducted Asha Devi, wife of Madan Mohan Pandey, due to this, Madan Mohan committed suicide. On the basis of above information (Ex. Ka-1),
First Information Report (Ex.Ka-5) was lodged on 08.08.2003 at Police Station Baijnath against Asha Devi and Anil Kumar Balodi. After completion
of investigation, charge sheet (Ex. Ka-11) was filed and accordingly cognizance was taken by the C.J.M. Bageshwar on 06.09.2003. After giving
necessary copies of the charge sheet to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., the C.J.M. committed the case to the court of Sessions
for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, on 06.11.2003, framed charge of offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C., against the appellants,
who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Deep Chandra Pandey (informant), PW2 Malti Devi (mother
of the deceased), PW3 Atul Pandey (Son of the deceased), PW4 Daya Kishan Pandey (Uncle of the deceased). After completion of the prosecution
evidence statement of accused recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they alleged the same to be false but no evidence in defence
was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under section
306 of I.P.C., against the accused Sharda Pandey and Anil Balodi. They were convicted accordingly. After hearing on sentence, each one of them
was sentenced as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 06.04.2004, passed by Learned Sessions Judge,
Bageshwar, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2003, “State Vs. Asha Devi and othersâ€, this appeal has been preferred by the above convicts namely
Asha Devi and Anil Balodi.
During the course of hearing of the appeal, it was informed that the appellant-Asha Devi has already served the sentence as imposed by the Trial
Court. Accordingly, she was produced before this Court and the appeal preferred by her was dismissed as infructuous on 18.10.2016 by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court.
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-Anil Kumar Balodi as well as learned Counsel for the State.
PW-1 Deep Chandra Pandey, who is brother of late Madan Mohan Pandey, stated that there was an illegal relation between the Anil Balodi and
Asha Devi (wife of the deceased). On 29.07.2003 his sister-in-law left her house without any information. His brother searched her when he did not
find his wife then he committed suicide on 03.08.2003 in the morning at his house. He committed suicide due to illegal relations of his wife with Anil
Balodi. He submitted an information to the Police Station Baijnath on 08.08.2003.
PW-2, Malti Devi, who is mother of deceased Madan Mohan Pandey stated that her son Madan Mohan was in Indian Army. On 26.07.2003, he
came at the house after taking leave. Anil Balodi wanted to keep her daughter-in-law Asha Devi with him. On 30.07.2003, her daughter-in-law Asha
Devi went Almora without informing us. Her son Madan Mohan searched his wife. She told her son Madan Mohan that his wife Asha Devi has gone
with Anil Balodi due to this her son Madan Mohan has committed suicide.
PW-3 Atul Pandey, who is the son of deceased Madan Mohan Pandey, stated that his father came at his house in the month of July, 2003 after
taking leave. At that time accused-Anil Balodi was also there. His father asked his mother Asha Devi that how Anil Balodi was in the house. His
mother said nothing. There was a quarrel between his parents and on the next date in the morning his mother left the house. His father searched her
but failed. Due to this, his father Madan Mohan Pandey committed suicide.
PW-4 Daya Kishan Pandey, who is uncle of deceased Madan Mohan Pandey, deposed that Madan Mohan Pandey came in July 2003 after getting
leave. The deceased told him that there was an illegal relation between Anil Balodi and his wife.
In the present matter PW-1 Deep Chandra Pandey gave his first information on 06.08.2003 with Police Station-Baijnath, in which he stated that on
03.08.2003 his brother Madan Mohan Pandey was found dead at his house situated at Ram Mandir street. He has suspicion on Asha Devi wife of
deceased and Anil Balodi, who was the friend of Asha Devi. Again on 08.08.2003, PW-3 Deep Chandra Pandey submitted another application with
Police Station-Baijnath on the same allegation. From the perusal of the information given by PW-1 Deep Chandra Pandey on 6.08.2003, he did not
state this fact that there was an illegal relationship between-Asha Devi and Anil Balodi. The another application which was given by PW-1 Deep
Chandra Pandey on 08.08.2003 is also silent about the illegal relationship between the two accused. Although this theory was developed by PW-1,
Deep Chandra Pandey when he appeared before the witness box. PW2 Malti Devi, who is the mother of the deceased although stated that the
accused Anil Balodi wanted to keep Asha Devi with him but she did state that there was an illegal relationship between Asha Devi and present
accused Anil Balodi. Although learned Session Judge while framing the charge against the present accused on 06.11.2003 in which charge was
framed with the allegation with the accused Anil Kumar Balodi abducted Asha Devi on 29.07.2003 from her matrimonial house but there is no
evidence on record, which show that the accused Anil Kumar Balodi abducted Asha Devi from her matrimonial house.
As regards to the charge under Section 306 IPC is concerned, constituents of an offence under Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetement
thereof. Although the definition of suicide is missing in the Code but ‘Sui’ means ‘Self’ and ‘cide’ means ‘killing’ thus,
implying an act of ‘self-killing’. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself or herself, irrespective of the means employed
by him or her in achieving his or her object of killing himself or herself.
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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide.
In Mahesh Yadav Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another, 2014(1) U.D. 94 which is based upon a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court,
including the one in M. Mohan Vs. State with Velmurugan and another Vs. State, 2011 (75) ACC 539 (SC) in which Hon’ble Apex Court, has
observed as follows:-
“45. 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, are 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed
suicide.â€
From the perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution there is no evidence which prove that the present accused Anil Balodi has
abetted the deceased Madan Mohan for committing suicide. The FIR given by PW-1 Deep Chandra Pandey on 06.08.2003 with Police Station
Baijnath in which he did not say anything about the abatement given by the present accused. The second information dated 08.08.2003 given by PW-1
Deep Chandra Pandey with Police Station-Baijnath but in the said information there is no allegation against the present accused about the abatement
to Madan Mohan Pandey.
During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer collected the letter written by the deceased Madan Mohan Pandey on 02.08.2003
which is Exb.Ka-3. From the perusal of the suicidal notice, it is clear that the deceased Madan Mohan Pandey stated that he is going to commit
suicide due to his wife and she is not entitled for his property.
From the perusal of the suicidal notice, it is clear that the deceased made all the allegations against his wife-Asha Devi, the co-accused. In the
suicidal note no allegation was made against the present accused. Even the suicidal note is silent about the illegal relationship of accused-Anil Balodi
with co-accused Sharda Pandey @ Asha Pandey. The essential ingredients of abatement is missing in the present case against the appellant-Anil
Balodi. Surpringly, victim himself did not utter a single word against the present appellant.
The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant-Anil Balodi. The trial Court did
not assess the evidence properly against the present appellant-Anil Balodi. While there is no sufficient evidence on file to prove the case under Section
306 IPC against the present appellant-Anil Balodi, accordingly, the appeal is allowed against the present appellant Anil Balodi and the appellant-Anil
Balodi is liable to be acquitted under Section 306 IPC.
In view of the above observations, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 06.04.2004 passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Bageshwar, in
Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2003, State Vs. Asha Devi & another, under Section 306 IPC is hereby set aside against the present appellant-Anil Balodi.
Appellant-Anil Balodi is acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged of their liabilities.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent forthwith to the learned Trial Court for information/ compliance.