State Of U.P. vs Guddu Yadav
2023 Latest Caselaw 18057 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47058
 
Court No. - 27
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 74 of 2013
 

 
Applicant :- State of U.P.
 
Opposite Party :- Guddu Yadav
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashif Khan, learned A.G.A.-I for the State.

2. This application has been filed for leave to appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 28.01.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ T.E.C.P.-3, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 265 of 2011 arising out Case Crime No. 449 of 2007 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Gudamba District Lucknow thereby acquitting the respondent from the charges levelled against him.

3. As per prosecution case, complainant/ Km. Laxmi Yadav (P.W.-1) had lodged an FIR on 18.12.2007 stating therein that she was residing with her parents on rent in the house of Pramod situated behind Dharmkata, Gudamba Atal Nagar, Lucknow. Her father had gone to maternal uncle's house for treatment on 12.12.2007 because he was suffering from illness. She had left her mother Vimla Devi alone and had gone to give tuition to children near the house. When she came back to her house, she found that the door of the house was locked from inside. She informed her maternal uncle on mobile. Her maternal uncle and maternal brother Anil reached to the house and they entered into the house from roof side and they found that her mother Vimla Devi had committed suicide and her body was hanging from the fixed wooden log. She was brought to the Trauma Centre where she was declared dead. It has been further stated in the FIR that on 12.12.2007 in the presence of complainant her brother-in-law Guddu Yadav and his father Shyam Lal and brothers Umesh, Mahesh,Suresh and Pravesh came to her house from Lucknow and they threatened to face dire consequence in case she would not transfer the land in their favouor. She further stated that after threatening, her mother committed suicide after sometime. On the basis of Tahrir given by the complainant, a case was registered in case crime no.304 of 2007 under section 306 IPC at Police Station Gudamba District Lucknow against Guddu Yadav, Shyamlal Yadav, Umesh, Mahesh, Suresh and Pravesh.

4. The case was investigated by Investigating Officer and the accused respondent- Guddu Yadav was charged and the charge-sheet was not filed against other accused persons, who were named in the FIR. Charges were framed on 23.04.2010 against accused-respondent under section 306 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and requested for trial.

5. The prosecution produced seven witnesses, namely, complainant- Laxmi Yadav (P.W.-1),Ram Saran (P.W.-2), Dr. Pramod Kumar ( P.W.-3), Mullu Ram ( P.W.-4), S.I. Ram Kumar Gupta ( P.W.-5), S.I. Vinod Kumar Mishra ( P.W.-6) and Arun Pratap Singh ( P.W.-7) were examined. The accused respondent was confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he deposed before the court that he was falsely implicated. Defence side also produced witnesses, namely, Ranjeeta ( D.W.-1) and Chatrapal (D.W.-2) in their defence.

6. After adducing the evidence, learned trial court acquitted the accused- respondents, hence the present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the State.

7. The complainant- Laxmi Yadav (P.W.-1) has narrated the same facts in examination-in-chief as narrated in the FIR. Similarly, Ram Saran (P.W.-2) was also called and he deposed before the court that he was called by Laxmi Yadav, Bhanji and when he came to the house, the door was closed and he entered into the house from roof and found that his sister Vimla Devi had committed suicide and her body was hanging from the fixed wooden log. He further deposed before the court that his sister had three daughters and Ranjeeta is one of the three daughters, who was married to the accused-respondent. His brother-in-law was not residing in his house because he was suffering from illness.He also deposed before the court that accused-respondent used to ask the deceased to transfer the entire land in his favour. He further deposed before the court that his sister opposed and she had many times told him that the entire property will be distributed in three daughters in equal shares. He deposed before the court that the accused-respondent had threatened many time to face dire consequences.

8. Dr. Pramod Kumar (P.W.-3) was also examined and as per medical report an oblique ligature mark 27 cm x 2 cm present on all around the neck above thyroid cartilage in front of neck and he opined that the death was caused due to Asphyxia as a result of antimortem hanging. Mullu Ram (P.W.-4), S.I. Ram Kumar Gupta (P.W.-5), S.I. Vinod Kumar Mishra (P.W.-6) and Arun Pratap Singh (P.W.-7) are the formal witnesses who had proved to documents.

9. The complainant- Laxmi Yadav (P.W.-1) had deposed before the court that accused-respondent had threatened many times to face some dire consequences in case land would not be transferred in his name. Laxmi Yadav (P.W.-1) has admitted in her cross- examination that she had not given any information to the police in this regard. She further deposed in her cross- examination that the said fact was also not apprised to her maternal uncle and her father. She had also not disclosed as to how much land property was belonging to her father and she was also not able to point out the location of the land in the name of her father. Six persons were named but chargesheet was filed against the accused-respondent Guddu Yadav and all other accused persons were exonerated.

10. Ranjeeta (D.W.-1) daughter of deceased deposed before the court that deceased had gone to the house of Ram Saran (P.W.-2) and she had asked him to return the ornaments. When the same was not returned, the deceased committed suicide.

11. This Court has to look into both sides. Prosecution side is making oral statement that the accused respondent had abetted the crime because her mother was pressurized by him,therefore, she committed suicide whereas Ranjeeta (D.W.-1) had deposed before the court that her mother had gone to the house of maternal uncle house to ask him to return the ornaments but the same was refused. Both stories are oral and they are accusing each side.

12.The material fact which is to be seen whether the accused-respondent abetted the crime and whether there is any cogent material to indicate that he was involved in abetment due to which deceased committed suicide.There is no cogent evidence which indicates that suicide was committed by abetment done by the accused-respondent.

13.In the case of Anil Kumar Sarkar Vs. State of West Bangal and others, reported in 2009 CRLJ 4678 , the Court has observed as under:-

" In order to substantiate a charge under section 306 IPC it has to be established that the person abetted must commit suicide. Death by commission of suicide must have the desired object of the abettors; and with that in view they must have instigated goaded, urged or encouraged the victim in commission of suicide. The instigation may be by provoking or inciting the person committing suicide and this instigation may be gathered by positive acts done by the abettors or by omission in the doing of a thing. Thus, the acts or omission committed by the abettors immediately before the commission of suicide are vital. The mere fact that certain persons have been named in the suicidal note to be responsible for his death is not by itself a ground to fasten one with the charge of abetment. In terms of section 107, it must prima facie appear to hold that the person named in the suicide note to be responsible for commission of sucide has abetted in the act. The act for conduct of the accused, even if there may be any however, insulting and abusive those may be, will not by themselves suffice to constitute abetment of commission of suicide,unless those are reasonably capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such acts consequence of suicide."

14. Hon'ble the Suprme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State through Dupty Superintendent of Police , reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 has observed as under:-

" Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

15. Thus, it is clear that without positive act on the part of the accused to instigate in committing suicide, conviction is not possible.

16. In the present case there is no cogent material which is established and proved by the prosecution. Thus, Section 306 IPC against the accused-respondent is not made out.

17. Looking into the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the court below. The application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.

18. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.

19. Since, the application for leave to appeal is rejected, the appeal is also dismissed.

20. Office is directed to return the lower court record to the court concerned forthwith.

Order Date :- 19.7.2023

dk/