Dinesh Kumar Shukla And Anr. vs The State Of U.P Thru Principal ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 920 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 5277 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla And Anr.
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P Thru Principal Secy., Home Deptt., And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sampurnanand Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.

Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Sampurnand Shukla, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.

Dinesh Kumar Shuka and Ashiwini Kumar @ Mantu are before us with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. dated 12th June, 2015 bearing Case Crime No. 0085 of 2015 under Section 306 I.P.C. P.S. Manikpur, District Pratapgrah and further to restrain the opposite parties from arresting them or using any coercive method against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention submits that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. It has been stated in the First Information Report that deceased was beaten by the petitioners, but in the post mortem report no mark of injury was found on the body of the deceased. F.I.R. has been lodged on the basis of hearsay. He further submits that even if allegations made in the First Information Report against the petitioners are taken to be true, even then no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners.

Learned A.G.A. while replying the aforementioned arguments submits that first informant is a public servant, S.I. Ravindra Kumar Singh, who in discharge of his official duty, has lodged the F.I.R., he has no enmity with the petitioners, therefore, there was no occasion to falsely implicate the petitioners in the present case. His next reply is that on 9.6.2015 at 8.00 a.m. the deceased without any reason was publicly dragged and beaten by the petitioners which compelled her to send her grand son to his father and committed suicide between 4-5 p.m. His next submission is that post mortem was conducted on the next day and on the dead body of the deceased ante mortem injuries caused by burn were extensively found. Marks of the burn injuries as depicted in the chart showing interior and posterior views reflect that her whole body was in a burnt state, for this reason any injury caused to her as a result of dragging and beating by the accused could not be found. According to him an aged lonely woman was humiliated and publicly dragged and beaten. These facts constitute sufficient instigation i.e. abetment to commit suicide, therefore, offence is made out from the allegations made in the First Information Report and Petition deserves to be dismissed.

First we would like to place on record factual matrix which has given rise to the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the accused/petitioners. On 12.6.2015 at 9.45 a.m. Sub Inspector Ravindra Kumar Singh gave a written report stating therein that deceased Deoni had died as P.S. Manikpur due to burn injuries on 9.6.2015. This information was received at 11.00 p.m. on 9.6.2015. On 10.6.2015 inquest was held and post mortem was conducted. He was entrusted to inquire on the basis of findings recorded in inquest report and post mortem report as to how the deceased had died due to burn injuries. During investigation he came to know that she was abandoned by her husband 30 years ago from whom she gave birth to a daughter. Since then she was living in her "Maika" after thatching separate hut. Presently, her grand son Aman aged about 10 years was living with her. On 9.6.2015 at 8.00 a.m. she went to fetch water from the public tap where Mantu Shukla was washing his cloths, due to sprinkling of some drops of water on the cloths of Mantu Shukla he became annoyed with the deceased and threw her bucket and removed her from there. When the deceased proceeded to her house uttering and cursing him Mantu Shukla and his father Dinesh Kumar Shukla became annoyed. They started to drag her and beat her publicly. After receiving the beating, the deceased sent her grand son to his father's village and after sprinkling kerosene oil committed suicide. Due to fear of Dinesh Shukla and his family members none had the courage to report against them.

In the post mortem report age of deceased has been reported as 58 years. Burn injuries were found all over the body. passing of rigour mortis within 24 hours indicates that her health to be feeble. Therefore, no legal infirmity in the First Information Report on the ground that it has not been lodged by the family member of the deceased and it is based on hearsay can be found. The points indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioners stood answered by the facts mentioned in the First Information Report themselves. Post mortem report discloses that on the dead body of the deceased there were burn injuries all over the body. We think there remains no possibility to discover any injury received by the deceased by the alleged beating given to her by the petitioners in the morning.

The main thrust of the counsel for the petitioners is that for constituting the offence of abetment to commit suicide, the Court has occasion to consider the provisions contained in Section 107 I.P.C. which defines the word "abetment". According to him beating or abusing do not fall within category of instigation nor aiding or conspiring nor facilitating the suicide.

First we would look to reproduce the provisions contained in Section 107 I.P.C. The same is quoated below :-

107. Abetment of a thing.?A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

(First) Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly) 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

(Thirdly) - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.-A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Brij Lal Vs. Prem Chand, AIR 1989 SC 1661 has occasion to visit the provisions contained in Section 107 I.P.C. and observe that instigation for commission of an offence when will be constituted it depends upon the facts of each case. Act of abetment has to be judged in conspectus of entire evidence in the case and not to be viewed or tested in isolation.

The main argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that instigation should be suggestive and persuasive to commit suicide. According to him in the present matter there is no evidence that the petitioners asked her or instigated her to commit suicide.

When argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is considered in the light of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court it transpires that this argument is fallacious because instigation inheres besides persuasion and suggestion, compulsion and coercion also. There is nothing to exclude the element of coercion and threat to exclude these from constituting the act of instigation.

Since during the dragging and beating what transpired between the petitioners and the deceased, it was known to only petitioners and the deceased, therefore, absence of any oral evidence in reference to words used by the petitioners, if any, at the time of the incident cannot be taken to be a disproved fact at this stage. The investigation is going on and the police is expected to fairly investigate the matter.

We would also like to observe that which act would constitute abetment to commit suicide cannot be judged on the basis of any straight jacket formula. Human nature differs from person to person. For example- for a young ruffian subjected to severe public beating perhaps it may not amount to instigation to end his life by committing suicide, but like in the present matter a rustic woman of advanced age abandoned by her husband 30 years ago may not be strong enough to live after such a public humiliation and physical torture. For aged persons de-humanising treatment may prove sufficient instigation to put an end to their lives.

In view of the above, only mere apprehension of the petitioners that they would be dragged to the Court, First Information Report as it stands today cannot be quashed.

No other argument have been advanced on behalf of the petitioners.

We find that petition lacks merit and is dismissed in limine.

Order Date :- 17.6.2015

Arvind

[Pratyush Kumar, J] [Shri Narayan Shukla,J]