Gurdeep Singh vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.

This is a criminal revision and has been directed against the order dated 20.8.1997 passed by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal, who decided to frame a charge under Sections 323, 506 and 306 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners.

The brief facts of the case are as follows :

Amit (deceased) son of Shri Phool Singh got his dying declaration recorded before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Karnal on 7.12.1996 at about 10.55 A.M. According to him, he was working as cleaner on truck bearing registration No. HR452755 and that Shri Gurdip Singh, one of the petitioners, was driver and another petitioner and Ashok Kumar were the owners of the truck. According to the deceased he had gone with the truck to Ahmedabad on the night intervening 25/26.11.1996 where Shri Gurdip Singh petitioner while in the state of intoxication tried to have sexual intercourse with him and also gave him beatings. He took Rs. 4,500/ from the truck and returned to Jundla from where he was called to Karnal by other petitioners namely Shri Ashok Kumar and Kala and enquired about the money. They also gave him beatings. He told them that he had already spent the amount and the same was not with him. However, they threatened to kill him and his father. He returned to his house on 6.12.1996 and while he was still under the fear of the threat being given by the petitioners, he ended his life by sprinkling kerosene oil on his body. On this report a case for an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC was registered. During the investigation Shri Amit succumb to the injuries and an offence under Section 306 IPC was added. During the course of investigation, the statement of the father of the deceased was also recorded, who allegedly corroborated the version of his son.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge for the reasons stated in para No. 4 of the impugned order came to a prima facie conclusion that offence under Section 306 is made out and in these circumstances he decided to frame a charge under Sections 323, 506 and 306 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners. Para No. 4 of the impugned order reads as under :

"4. I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case carefully. At this stage, only prima facie case is to be seen and it has been rightly argued by the learned PP for the State that charge can be framed if there is grave suspicion which goes towards the guilt of the accused and the meticulous examination of the evidence is not required at this stage. Further it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the each case as to whether a particular act amounts to abetment on the part of the accused or not. In this case, as per dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Magistrate and as per statement of father of deceased and another witness namely Prem Chand, deceased was not in a position to return the amount of Rs. 4,500/ to the accused as head already spent the same. According to him one of the accused tried to have cardinal intercourse with him. He was given beatings by all the accused severally and they also threatened to kill him and his father by giving severe beatings and hence all these facts taken together go to prima facie show that deceased was under constant thereat from the accused as he was not in a position to return the amount and under the threat of being tortured by the accused, he put an end to his life by sprinkling kerosene oil on his body."

Aggrieved by the said order dated 20.8.1997, the present revision.

I have heard Shri Ashit Malik, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioners, Shri J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate for the State of Haryana and with their assistance I have gone through the record of this case.

Section 306 I.P.C. lays down that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished for abetment of suicide. The main point for consideration is whether in the light of the allegations levelled against the petitioners by the prosecution it can be said that there was abetment from the side of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the State relies on para No. 3 of the impugned order and maintains that there were constant threats from the side of the petitioners, as a result of which deceased Amit committed suicide and it tantamounts to abetment. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. As per provisions of Section 107 IPC 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 and in order to the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

A reading of the above provisions would show that there should be a direct nexus between the act complained of and the ultimate effect. If the deceased had resorted to commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil upon himself, it cannot be readily said that petitioners were responsible. As per the allegations of the prosecution one of the petitioners tried to have cardinal intercourse with the deceased. The deceased might have felt ashamed on this. He might have also felt ashmed of the fact that he had committed the theft of the money of the master. There was a demand of money which was the material conduct on the part of the petitioners but it cannot be said that there was common abetment or that there was any instigation on the part of the petitioners to the deceased for committing of suicide. I do not dispute with the proposition of law that while framing the charge the trial Court is supposed to see a prima facie case, but if the parameters of prima facie case are totally beyond the circle and scope of Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C. certainly this Court has the power to interfere with the said illegal orders while exercising the powers in revision.

Resultantly, I accept this revision, set aside the order dated 20.8.1997 so far it decides to frame a charge under Section 306 I.P.C. against the petitioners. Now the learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall proceed against the petitioners according to law because the offences under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC are not triable by the Court of Session.

Revision allowed.