Manoj Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 1097 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?A.F.R. 
 
Court No. - 50
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 222 of 2018
 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The present application has been moved for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.5.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S.T. No.950 of 2016, Case Crime No.586 of 2015, (State Vs. Smt. Soni), acquitting the opposite party no.2 from the charges of offence under section 306 IPC.

The prosecution case in brief is that on the report submitted by Manoj Kumar Singh, the brother of deceased a G.D. Entry No.59 was made at P.S. Majhola, District Moradabad at 18:30 p.m. on 14.8.2015 to the effect that his younger Ravi @ Chhotu aged about 26 years under influence of some metaphysical effects, for which he was given treatment, but his wife Smt. Soni went to her parental house 15 days back and as usual Ravi Took his meal and went inside his room at about 11:00 p.m., but, he did not come out till late hours in noon and upon seeing from ventilator, he was found sitting by the side of refrigerator and foul smell was there and it was suspected that he had consumed some poisonous substance and had committed suicide. It was also contended that a suicide note, in 3 pages, and two tablets of Salfas, in a glass vial (Shishi) was recovered from the spot. Subsequently, F.I.R. was lodged at Case Crime No.586 of 2015, under section 306 IPC by Manoj Kumar Singh against Smt. Soni, the respondent, her maternal grand-mother, maternal aunt and her brothers Pushpendra and Gaurav, under section 306 IPC with the allegations that Smt. Soni had illicit relations with some paramour to whom she used to talk and pressurized the deceased to dispose of his entire property and reside with her at her maternal grand-mother's village and she used to physically and mentally torture the deceased and extended threats of dire consequences and owing to this torturing, the deceased committed suicide by engulfing poisonous substance on 14.8.2015.

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant contends that above dispute over character of accused-respondent a Panchayat was called, but she was not amenable to reason, rather left for her maika; that in the circumstances it is clear that Ravi @ Chhotu consumed poison on account of torturous behaviour and conduct of accused-respondent and, thus, committed suicide.

Learned AGA supported the impugned order.

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that the trial Court has discussed and analyzed the prosecution evidence in detail and has found that in forensic report writing over suicide note has not been proved to be that of deceased. Moreover, there is no memo of recovery of suicide note on record. It is pertinent to mention that prosecution has not disclosed the name of alleged paramour of the accused-respondent and there is no iota of evidence to indicate that the accused-respondent was having any paramour or was having any illicit relationship with alleged paramour or used to talk with alleged paramour during nights. Further there is no iota of evidence to show that accused-respondent ever pressurized her husband, the deceased to sell his property or accompany her to the place of her maternal grand-mother or was ever tortured by her, compelling him to commit suicide. It is admitted case of prosecution that the deceased was under influence of some metaphysical effects and was under treatment and his wife, the accused-respondent had left to her maika about 15 days back. The trial court has also mentioned the evidence of P.W.5 Vinod Kumar, who has stated that he does not know personally about the character of accused-respondent and has stated as was told by Ravi and that Ravi had not told that he will commit suicide. All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that the accused-respondent was in her maika since 10-15 days before the incident. P.W. 5 has also stated that a person of ordinary prudence may have doubt over the character of his wife in case she talks with someone else over phone during nights, but will not commit suicide, as it is foolish act and the deceased was a fool, who committed suicide.

Section 306 of IPC provides, 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.

Section 107 of IPC defines to abetment as comprising :- (i) instigation to commit offence, (ii) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence, (iii) aids the commission of offence. The abetment, thus necessarily means some active suggestion, or support to the commission of the offence. The word 'instigate' literally means to goad, urge, forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act, and a person is said to instigate another, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means, or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of giving hints insinuation, or encouragement.

The prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that the accused-respondent ever instigated the deceased to commit suicide or engaged any conspiracy for committing suicide by him or aided in commission of suicide in any manner whatsoever. The trial court has found that after death of Ravi @ Chhotu, there is property dispute of inheritance, which creates a doubt that the accusation was by and on behalf of complainant Manoj against the accused, with a view to grab the property of deceased and deprived the accused-respondent from above property.

In 2010 (4) Crimes 34 in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat, the Apex Court has held that "merely because a person had a grudge against her superior and committed suicide on account of that grudge -- even honestly feeling that he was wronged, it would still not be a proper allegation for basing the charge under section 306 IPC."

In the case of S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan 2010 (4) Crimes 101, the Apex Court held that "abetment involved a mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing -- without a positive act by accused as above, conviction cannot be sustained -- ingredients of abetment not attracted merely on statement of deceased."

In latest pronouncement in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2017 (98) ACC 285, the Apex Court held that "the intention of legislature is that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option."

It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the findings given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.5.2018

Tamang

Order on Memo of Appeal

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

Dismissed.

For order, see order of date passed on application for leave to file appeal.

Order Date :- 30.5.2018

Tamang