Sanjay Soni and Others vs State of C.G.

D.R. Deshmukh, J.—With the consent of parties, this revision which is directed against the order dated 23.07.2009 passed in Sessions Case 145/2009 whereby the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur framed charge u/s 498A and 306 read with 34 of the I.P.C. against the Petitioners, was heard finally at the stage of admission on 10.08.2009.

It is not in dispute that Petitioner No. 1 - Sanjay Soni is the husband of the deceased - Smt. Tara Devi Soni, who died on account of burn injuries on 08.10.2007, Petitioner No. 2 - Shambhu Soni is the elder brother of Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 3 - Pramila Soni is the wife of the Petitioner No. 2 and Petitioner No. 4 is the mother of the Petitioners No. 1 and 2.

Shri Pramod Verma, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners submitted at the very outset that in this criminal revision he would not assail framing of charge u/s 498A of the I.P.C. against the Petitioners.

The law relating to test for framing of charge is well settled. In State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc. Vs. Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc., , it was held as under:

The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a Court could to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence; a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.

In Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Choudhary and Others, , it was held by the Supreme Court that at the stage of framing of charge the test of a prima facie case has to be applied. In State of Karnataka Vs. L. Muniswamy and Others, , it was held by the Apex Court as under:

At the stage of framing the charge the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused. The Court has to see while considering the question of framing the charge as to whether the material brought on record reasonably connect the accused with the trial. Nothing more is required to be inquired into.

Bearing in mind the test for framing of charge, I have perused the copies of documents u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her dying declaration recorded by Naib Tahsildar, Ambikapur on 01.10.2007 after certification by Dr. Rajni that Tara Devi Soni was conscious and oriented and fit to give a statement, Smt. Tara Devi Soni had stated that she caught fire due to an accident when at night while trying to light the Dibri it fell on the ground whereby kerosene was spilled over her and caught fire. She had also stated that her husband had immediately tried to extinguish fire by covering her with a blanket and threw water on her. She was discharged from Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur on 02.10.2007 at 09.00 A.M. and referred to a Higher Center for further management. Smt. Tara Devi Soni died on 08.10.2007 due to burn injuries. Post-mortem report revealed that cause of death was due to Septicemia and shock, as a result of burn injuries.

The statement of Lal Chand Thakur was recorded as late as on 03.02.2008 which revealed that in Mission Hospital, Ambikapur, Smt. Tara Devi Soni had told him that she had committed suicide by removing petrol from the motor cycle and set herself on fire after sprinkling the petrol over her body. She also told that the reason for committing suicide was that Smt. Tara Devi Soni could not bear any child after the birth of a daughter since her pregnancy was terminated by the Petitioner No. 1 and thereafter some complications arose. On this count, some discussions used to take place between the spouses. It was further stated that Smt. Tara Devi Soni was asked by the Petitioners to adopt one of the children of the brother of the Petitioner No. 1, due to which she used to be very upset.

In Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana AIR 2008 SCW 3202, the Supreme Court observed and held as under:

Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The said provision reads as follows:

ABETMENT OF SUICIDE. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence u/s 306 of IPC.

In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, , this Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that in the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. ''Abetted'' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normaly linked with the proved offence.

In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough. [See Mahinder Singh v. State of M.P.AIR SCW 1995 4570.

Having considered the documents u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its entirety and on its face value, I am of the considered opinion that there is no material on record which would show that the Petitioners wanted that Smt. Tara Devi Soni should end her life. All that they wanted was that she should adopt a child of the brother of the Petitioner No. 1 since she could not bear children. Trifling quarrel between the spouses on account of the wife refusing to adopt a child cannot be termed as sufficient to constitute abetment by the husband and relatives, of the suicide committed by the wife.

Having thus considered the entire material produced by the prosecution u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to show that the Petitioners had in any manner abetted or instigated the commission of suicide by Smt. Tara Devi Soni. Framing of charge u/s 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the Petitioners is contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

In the result, this Criminal Revision is partly allowed. Charge u/s 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. against the Petitioners is set aside. So far as the charge u/s 498A of the I.P.C. being triable by a Magistrate First Class is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge shall proceed u/s 228(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in accordance with law.