AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
All these revisions petitions are directed against the order
dated 13.07.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge
No.1, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.43/2014 and are thus being
decided together.
Facts in brief are that respondent No.2 Makkhan Lal lodged a
written report at the Police Station Naya Shahar, Bikaner on
22.06.2014 alleging inter alia that he had lodged a report at the
police station a few days ago in which, he had complained of the
misbehaviour being meted out to his family members by Smt.
Khushbu wife of his younger son Kanhaiya Lal. It was alleged in
the report that on 20.06.2014, the lady crossed all limits and
accompanied by her father Shyam Bohra, mother, Babulal Vyas,
etc., she came to his house and misbehaved with his daughters
and also outraged their modesty. The household articles were
damaged. Locks of an almirah were broken and Khusbhu took
away some valuables from it. While going away, these persons
threatened that either Khushbu would kill Kanhaiya Lal or he
would be left with no option but to end his life. Makkhan Lal
mentioned in the report that despite the incident of 20.06.2014
being reported at the police station, no action was taken and
rather he was advised to go to the woman police station where,
talks of settlement were undertaken between the parties. In the
night preceding lodging of the report, Khushbu called Kanhaiya Lal on mobile and threatened him with dire consequences. Being
perturbed thereby, Kanhaiya Lal committed suicide. On the basis
of this report, an FIR No.226/2014 came to be lodged at the Police
Station Naya Shahar, District Bikaner and investigation was
commenced. After investigation, the investigating officer
proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the petitioners herein for
the offence under Section 306 / 34 IPC. The trial court passed the
order dated 13.07.2015 and directed framing of charges against
all the accused for the offences under Section 306 IPC in the
alternate under Section 306 / 34 IPC. Being aggrieved thereby, the
petitioners have approached this Court by way of these three
revisions. Whilst the revision Nos.922/2015 and 875/2015 were
presented within limitation, however, the revision No.1395/2015
submitted on behalf of petitioner Dau Lal is time barred without
any application for condonation of delay. However, at the time of
advancing arguments, Shri H.S. Shrimali learned counsel
representing the petitioner Dau Lal submitted that as this Court
has already entertained two other revisions against the very same
order passed by the trial court, the delay occasioned in filing the
revision No.1395/2015 being bonafide be condoned and the same
be heard on merit. The oral prayer made by Shri H.S. Shrimali is
fit to be accepted and thus, the delay occasioned in filing of the
revision No.1395/2015 is condoned.
Notice of the revision No.922/2015 has been served on the
respondent complainant and Mr. Ajay Vyas, Advocate has put in
appearance on his behalf. His arguments were heard in all the
three revisions on behalf of the complainant.
Sarva Shri Anil Vyas and Shri H.S. Shrimali, learned counsel
representing the accused petitioners vehemently urged that ex-
facie there is no material on the record of the case to show that
the petitioners instigated or abetted the deceased Kanhaiya Lal to
commit suicide. A matrimonial rift was going on between Kanhaiya
Lal and his wife the accused petitioner Khushbu and owing to this,
she left the matrimonial home and went back to her father''s
house. There was no interaction between the petitioners and the
deceased soon before he committed suicide and thus, ex-facie
there is no material so as to frame charge against the petitioners
for the offence under Section 306, 306 / 34 IPC. They thus urged
that the revisions deserve to be accepted and the impugned order
being bad in law should be set aside. In support of their
contentions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following
judgments:
(1) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P ., AIR 2002 SC
1998;
(2) Satveer singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, 2003(1) CJ (Raj.)
Cr. 441;
(3) Surendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002(2) R.C.C. 965;
(4) S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr . (2010) 3 CCR
(SC) 476;
(5) Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010
SC 327;
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
representing the complainant vehemently opposed the
submissions advanced by the petitioners'' counsel and urged that
there is ample material on the record to show that the petitioner
Khusbhu and her family members were continuously harassing
and humiliating the deceased Kanhaiya Lal and his family
members and were threatening them with dire consequences.
Makkhan Lal, the complainant had submitted repeated
applications at the police station complaining of the cruel
behaviour meted out by the petitioner Khushbu to her husband,
the deceased Kanhaiya Lal. Just two days before the incident,
Khushbu accompanied by her parents and Babulal Vyas came to
the house of the complainant and damaged the household articles
and also molested his daughters. Some articles were also stolen
after breaking the lock of an almirah. The matter was reported to
the police. On 22.06.2014, Khushbu called Kanhaiya Lal and
threatened him with dire consequences upon which, he became
highly perturbed and ended his life leaving behind a suicide note
spelling out the gory details of the excesses committed upon him
by Smt. Khushbu and her maternal relatives. They urged that it is
clearly spelt out from the suicide note and statements of Makkhan
Lal, the first informant, Laxmi Devi (his wife), Narmada Devi
(daughter) and other witnesses that the petitioner Khushbu and
her family members were indulging in continuous harassment and
humiliation of the deceased. The petitioner Khushbu and her
parents forced their way into the complainant''s house and
damaged the household goods. The locks of an almirah were
broken and Khushbu forcibly took away the articles lying therein.
Modesty of Kanhaiyalal''s sisters was outraged and they were
humiliated. This incident was reported to the police and
conciliation was attempted. Soon thereafter, Khushbu called the
deceased Kanhaiya Lal on his mobile phone and gave him threats.
Upon this, the deceased became highly perturbed and ended his
life by hanging himself. They thus urged that the order framing
charge against the petitioners is perfectly justified and does not
warrant any interference.
I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the
impugned order, the challan papers and have also respectfully
perused the judgments cited at bar.
Suffice it to say that each criminal case traverses on its own
facts and the precedents laid down by courts of law have to be
considered in context to the peculiar facts of each case. Upon
examination of the facts of the case at hand, I am of the opinion
that none of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioners apply to the present case. In most of these judgments,
the events preceding the suicide reveal that either it was an
outcome of a sudden quarrel or that the deceased was of highly
sensitive nature. In the case at hand, there is a clear allegation of
the complainant side that the deceased Kanhaiya Lal was being
continuously harassed by the petitioner Khushbu who was
threatening him with dire consequences. The deceased and his
father, the complainant herein were regularly approaching the
police station for reporting these offensive vengeful acts. Just two
days before the incident, Khushbu accompanied with her parents
and other relatives, forced her way into the complainant''s house
and took away some articles after breaking open the doors of an
almirah. Smt. Narmada, sister of Kanhaiyalal in her statement has
claimed that the articles belonged to her and her sister. The
deceased Kanhaiyalal left a suicide note before ending his life in
which, he has clearly narrated the gory details of the offensive,
cruel and vengeful acts particularly those of the petitioner Smt.
Khushbu which instigated him to take the tragic decision of ending
his own life. On a consideration of the tenor of the prosecution
evidence, it is apparent that the main allegations of threat,
harassment and wreaking vengeance upon Kanhaiya Lal which
finally drove him to commit suicide are attributed to his wife, the
petitioner Khushbu. So far as the other accused petitioners are
concerned, all that is alleged is that they had were also present
during the incident of 20.06.2014 and allegedly forced their way
into the house of the complainant and took away certain articles,
etc. The deceased committed suicide after two days of this
incident. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the said incident
dated 20.06.2014 can be considered to be the catalyst which
instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The immediate cause
of suicide appears to be the threat given by the petitioner
Khushbu to the deceased on his mobile phone just before he
ended his life. The recording of the conversation and the
transcription thereof have also been taken on record by the I.O. in
which the highly cruel and vengeful behaviour of the petitioner
Khushbu with the deceased is clearly reflected. The deceased and
his father were continuously making reports to the police
regarding the harassment meted out to them by Smt. Khusbhu.
In this background, I am duly satisfied that the impugned
has to be maintained to the extent, charge under Section 306 IPC
was framed against the petitioner Khusbhu. However, so far as the
other accused petitioners are concerned, this Court is of the
opinion that the admitted prosecution allegations and evidence
collected by the I.O. during investigation are not sufficient so as to
justify the charge framed against them for offence under Section
306 in the alternative 306/34 IPC . Consequently, the impugned
order dated 13.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.1, Bikaner deserves to be set aside to their extent.
Thus, revision Petition Nos.875/2015 and 1395/2015 are
allowed in toto whereas revision No.922/2015 is allowed in part.
While quashing and setting aside the impugned order framing
charge dated 13.07.2015 to the extent of the petitioners Smt.
Asha Devi and Shyam Sunder, Babulal and Daulal, the same is
affirmed qua the petitioner Khushbu.
A copy of this order be placed in each file.