Chattisgarh High Court

Ramshankar vs The State Of C.G on 3 December, 2021

                                  1

                                                             NAFR

     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                Judgment reserved on : 17/09/2021
                Judgment delivered on: 03 /12/2021
                       CRA No. 406 of 2001


     1. Ramashanker Singh S/o. Sant Baksh Singh, aged about
        53 years, R/o Hunsepura, thana Kaptan Ganj, District
        Ajamgarh, presently residing at Sector VI-B/250 Balco,
        District Korba.
     2.    Sanjay Singh S/o. Ramashanker Singh, aged about 18
          years, R/o. Sector VI-B/250, Balco, District Korba (C.G.)


                                                  ---- Appellants
                               Versus
         State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate,
          Korba (C.G.)
                                                 ---- Respondent

For Appellant : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Adv.

For State
[[
                                  :     Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, PL

                Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                             CAV Order

03/12 /2021

1. With reference to the appellant No. 1, Ramashankar

Singh, this appeal has been abated vide order dated

27.11.2009.

2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2001 passed

by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba in

Sessions Trial No. 8/1994 whereby and whereunder, learned

Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under

Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I.

for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, plus default

stipulation.

3. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Ravindra Singh

and appellant No.2/Sanjay Singh were admitted in the

Chhattisgarh Institute of Engineering with the help of

appellant No.1/ Ramashanker Singh. One day, Appellant

No.-1/Ramashanker Singh gave Rs. 500/- to deceased

Ravindra Singh to hand over the same to Appellant No.-

2/Sanjay Singh. As the same was not fully delivered,

Respondent No.2/Sanjay Singh could not deposit the

examination fee, as a result of which, he did not appear in

the examination. Based on that a quarrel arose between the

deceased and Sanjay Singh. As his one year of engineering

was spoiled, he claimed of Rs. 8,000/- from the deceased.

Thereafter, the appellants started harassing the deceased

and committed mar-peet in the name of claimed money, due

to which, after being harassed, deceased Ravindra Singh

consumed poisonous substance. He was admitted to the

hospital but during the treatment, he died. After completion

of investigation charge-sheet was filed and charge was

framed under Section 306 of the IPC against the appellants.

4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the

prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses.

Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded

under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the

charges leveled against them and pleaded innocence and

false implication in the case and also examined 5 witnesses

in their defence.

5. After examination of oral and documentary evidence,

learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Section

306 and sentenced them as mentioned above in para 1 of

this order. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellants.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

learned Court below erroneously held the appellant guilty

under Section 306 of the IPC as there is no legal material

available on record to show instigation on behalf of the

appellant within a month of the death of the deceased. It is

further submitted that it would be improper to convict the

appellant in the alleged commission of offence merely on

the basis of suspicion and also the prosecution has failed to

establish the ingredients of the abetment of suicide. There is

no cogent evidence against the appellant which can prove

cruelty or ill-treatment for last about one month. The dispute

arose due to the non-delivering of the alleged amount to the

Appellant No. 2/Sanjay Singh by the deceased and the

appellant Sanjay Singh could not appear in the examination

but it is not the reason of instant abetment as the same was

happened much prior to the death of the deceased,

therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence

is liable to be set-aside. In support of her argument, learned

counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Singh

and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1996 CriLJ 894,

Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.

reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, M. Mohan Vs. State

reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 and this Court's order dated

11.09.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No 136/2014.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported

the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

of the Court below convicting the appellants under Section

306 of the IPC, being based on the material available on

record, are just and proper and do not call for any

interference in this appeal.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the records including the impugned judgment.

9. As per the prosecution case deceased Ravindra Singh did

not give the alleged money to Appellant No. 2/Sanjay Singh

due to which he (Sanjay Singh) could not deposit the

examination fee and did not appear in the examination.

Appellant abused the deceased and bothered him, due to

this harassment deceased committed suicide by consuming

poisonous substance. Savitri Singh (PW-2) and Ramdayal

Singh (PW-16) are parents of the deceased. Savitri Singh

(PW-2) stated in para 8 of her deposition that appellant

Sanjay Singh and one Devendra Singh came to her house

with 20-30 persons and started knocking the door but she

did not open the door. On being asked, appellant demanded

Rs. 8,000/- from the deceased. Thereafter, some neighbours

of the Savitri Singh came and drove away the appellant and

his companions. Again she stated in para 9 of her deposition

that on 21.08.1993 when Ravinder Singh was in Raipur,

appellants called him stating that his mother is ill and on

24.08.1993, when Ravinder Singh came to house, he found

me healthy and fine. In para 10 she stated that on

25.08.1993 Ravinder Singh went with his friend Sunil Kumar

Ratre for repairing of his bike and when he came back he

was very depressed. Again talked with Sunil Kumar Ratre,

came to home and stated that the appellants would not let

him live. Then he took tea, listened music and started

vomiting. In para 12 she stated that:

Þesjs yMds dks mYVh de gq;h rks esjs yMds us esjk gkFk idMdj

crk;k fd jek'kadj flag] mldh iRuh] nsosUnz flag lat; flag us

feydj esjh tku ys yh gS bUgsa er NksMukA mlus ;g Hkh dgk fd

cgqr ijs'kku fd;s gSaA mlus ;s Hkh dgk fd ;s yksx cgqr ijs'kku

fd;s gSa ekjihV fd;s gSa bUgsa NksMuk er mlds Ckkn flLVj usa eq>s

ogka ls mBk fn;kAß

10. Ramdayal Singh (PW-16), father of the deceased stated

in para 28 of his statement that:-

Þizk.k NwVus ds igys yMdk esjs gkFk dks vius gkFk esa ysdj nck

fn;k rks eSaus mlls dgk fd ;s rqe D;k fd;k rqEgsa D;k gks x;k rks

esjs yMdk jfoUnz flag us dgk fd esjs lkFk vekuqf "kd O;ogkj gqvk

gS] esjs tgj ysus dk dkj.k ;s pkjksa vkneh jek'kadj flag] mldh

iRuh rFkk nksauksa yMds lat; flag vkSj nsosUnz flag gSaA yMdsa usa

dgk Fkk fd eSa rks tk jgk gwa ysfdu ikik budks NksfM;sxk ugha A

varr% yMds dh e`R;q gks x;hAß

11. The question in this case is as to whether, considering

and accepting the entire material available on record as

absolutely correct and true, a case for alleged commission of

offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is made out

against the present appellant.

12. In this case of abetment of suicide, Sections 306, 107

and 109 of the IPC are relevant which are as under:-

"306. 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.

107. 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.

109. Punishment of abetment if the act abetted

is committed in consequence and where no

express provision is made for its punishment-

Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is

committed in consequence of the abetment, and no

express provision is made by this Code for the

punishment of such abetment, be punished with the

punishment provided for the offence."

13. As per the definition given in Section 107 IPC abetment

is constituted by-

 Instigating a person to commit an offence; or

 Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or

 Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

14. As section 306 IPC makes abetment of commission of

suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the

prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the

commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining

the act of the accused it is necessary to see that his act

must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under

Section 107 IPC, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that

the said accused has instigated the person to commit

suicide or must have engaged with one or more other

person in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased

commits suicide or he must intentionally aid by any act or

illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the

deceased.

15. B.P. Singh (PW-13) has stated in his evidence that on 19-

20 August R.D. Singh and Ramashankar Singh had come to

his house along with their children Ravindra Singh and

Sanjay Singh respectively. In para 3 he stated the full

conversation in detail held among all of them and lastly

submitted that after 15 to 20 days of the discussion the

incident has held. In para 5 he stated that:

Þnksuks ds chp esa lqyg D;ksa ugha gks ik;k bldk dkj.k eSa ugha

tkyrk nkuksa esa ckrh&ckrk gks jgk FkkA fglkc fdrkc dk vknku

iznku gks jgk FkkAß

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Mahendra (Supra)

that merely the allegation of harassment to deceased there

was no other pointed evidence from which it could be

inferred that there was any abetment. However, the dying

declaration, per se, could not involve appellant in offence

punishable under Section 306 of IPC and conviction of

appellant under Section 306 of IPC merely on allegation of

harassment to deceased was not sustainable.

17. In the matter of Sanju (Supra) learned the Apex Court

held in paras 9 & 10 that:

"9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.2 the appellant

was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC

basically based upon the dying declaration of the

deceased, which reads as under; (SCC p. 731, para 1)

"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-

in-law (husband's elder brother's wife)

harassed me. They beat me and abused me.

My husband Mahendra wants to marry a

second time. He has illicit connections with

my sister-in-law. Because of these reason

and being harassed I want to die by

burning"

10. This Court, considering the definition of

"abetment" under Section 107 IPC, found that the

charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence

under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the

allegation of harassment of the deceased. This Court

further held that neither of the ingredients of

abetment are attracted on the statement of the

deceased."

18. Again in the matter of M. Mohan (Supra) the Hon'ble

Apex Court held in paras 44 & 45 as under:-

"44. 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

2 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731

to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction

cannot be sustained.

45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the

cases decided by this Court are 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."

19. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

that a quarrel between accused and deceased was held

before 10 to 15 days and the cause of quarrel was that the

deceased did not give the said money to appellant

No.2/Sanjay Singh so he could not deposit his examination

fee and for that reason appellant abused and harassed the

deceased. But as the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under

Section 107 & 306 of the IPC provides that words uttered in

a quarrel on the spur of moment cannot be taken uttered as

mens rea, it is in a fit of anger and emotion and as per the

prosecution witnesses alleged abusing words said to have

been uttered to the deceased 15 to 20 days before the