Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2009 Latest Caselaw 2743 Del

*               THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      Crl. Rev. P. No.61/2008

                                          Reserved on : 17.07.2009
                                        Date of Decision : 21.7.2009

Ashok Kumar & Anr.                                 ...... Petitioners
                                      Through : Ajay Burman with
                                                Mr. R.K. Sinha, Adv.

                                   Versus

The State (NCT of Delhi)                        ...... Respondent
                                     Through : Mr. Pawan Bahl, Adv.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

1.      Whether Reporters of local papers may be
        allowed to see the judgment?                      YES
2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?            YES
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported
        in the Digest ?                                   YES

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read

with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the

order dated 1st November, 2007 passed by Sh. V.P. Vaish, the

learned ASJ, Rohini, Delhi directing the framing of charges

against the petitioners Ashok Kumar and Narender Kumar Yadav

under Section 306/34 IPC in case FIR No. 625 registered by S.P.

Badli police station.

2. Briefly stated facts leading to the filing of the present

petition are that on 14th December, 2003, on the basis of

information received from PCR, local police of Badli police

station went to S-41, Badli Industrial Area, Delhi where they a

dead body was found hanging from a ceiling fan. On

investigation, a suicide note was recovered from the dead body.

The said suicide note read as under:

"I have to take Rs.4,000/- from Kashi, who was gone to his native place. His brother is Virender Bisht (at some places it is shown "Birender". I have no complaint against Virender Bisht. I have not hanged myself of my own will. This has been done in the last moment, because foreman, Narender Yadav of S-41 and owner, Ashok Nagpal of S-41 used to harass me daily saying that they will oust me from the job, while after being unemployed, I have no other alternative (mere pas aur koi chara nahi hai.)"

3. The police investigated the matter and recorded the

statement of various witnesses including one of Agvir Singh Bisht

who is the cousin of the deceased Bir Bahadur. After

investigation a charge sheet under Section 306/34 IPC was filed

against both the petitioners. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by

the said order have chosen to file the present revision petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well

as the learned counsel for the State.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that even if the evidence, as it is, including the

suicide note, is taken on its face value, no prima facie case under

Section 306 IPC is made out as there is no incitement, goading,

cajoling, instigation or any other act or omission by way of any

overt act attributed to the petitioners which could be treated to

be an abetment to suicide of the deceased. Therefore, learned

Additional Sessions Judge has grossly erred in directing the

framing of charge against the petitioners. The learned counsel

for the petitioners has placed reliance on the following

judgments:

        (i)      Neeraj Gupta Vs. State
                 132 (2006) Delhi Law Times

        (ii)     Roop Kishore Madan Vs. State
                 89(2001) DLT 265

        (iii)    Hira Lal Jain Vs. State
                 87 (2000) DLT 265

        (iv)     Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P.
                 2002 SCC (Cri.) 1141

        (v)      Smt. Mamta Sahu Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi)
                 2005 (3) JCC 1749

        (vi)     Brij Lal & Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
                 1985 C.C. Cases HC 130

        (vii)    Sia Ram & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
                 1975 Crl.LJ 240

(viii) Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti Vs. State 86(2000) Delhi Law Times 436

6. Out of the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel has

especially referred to judgment of Neeraj Gupta's case (supra)

where in somewhat similar circumstances the learned Single

Judge of this court came to the conclusion that there was no

mens-rea attributable to the persons charged of the offence of

abetment of suicide and there was no act or omission

attributable to the petitioners which could be construed as an

instigation under Section 107 of the IPC.

7. As against this, the learned counsel for the State has drawn

my attention to the case titled Didigam Bikshapathi & Anr. Vs.

State of A.P. AIR 2008 SC 527 where the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had rejected the contention of a petitioner for quashing of

an FIR on the basis of the suicide note on the ground that the

suicide note gave the background of the case.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

respective sides and perused the judgments.

9. So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the

learned APP is concerned, this is a case which is totally

distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In this

particular Didigam Bikshapathi's case (supra) the prayer was

for quashing of the FIR and the consequent proceedings initiated

against the petitioner on the ground that no offence under

Section 306 IPC is made out, however, in the instant case there

is no prayer for quashing and secondly the Court had specifically

noted that in the suicide note a background of the reasons for

committing the suicide was given while as in the case in hand no

such thing is given.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my

attention to the various judgments cited by him where there is

one common thread, which is to the effect that in a case of

abetment there must be some overt act attributed to the accused

to show that he had instigated, goaded, persuaded, incited or in

any manner driven the deceased to commit suicide. Admittedly,

in the instant case there is no such prima facie evidence. On the

contrary what has been stated in the suicide note of the

deceased, is that as the deceased was being harassed by two

persons one of whom was foremen and the owner of the factory,

that he would be shunted out from the job, therefore, the

deceased in order to save himself from the ignominy of being

turned out from the job was committing suicide.

11. The petitioners were not aware about the suicidal tendency

of the deceased. No doubt unfortunately the life of the young

person had been lost but without there being any overt or covert

act on the part of the petitioners. In my view the petitioners could

not be charged for an offence under Sections 306/34 IPC as the

basic ingredients of section in the light of judicial

pronouncements are not made out. There has to be some overt

act or omission on the part of the accused because of which the

deceased is activated to take action to end his life. There is no

such fact or statement or a circumstance available on record to

assume so against the petitioner merely because the deceased

had nurtured suicidal tendency or was eccentric or had actually

felt or had apprehended that if he is turned out from the job he

will lose his standing in the society and therefore ended his life.

The prosecution must prima facie establish the ingredients of the

offence under Section 306 IPC which I feel the respondent has

miserably failed to do so.

12. For the foregoing reasons mentioned above, I am of the

considered opinion that there is no prima facie evidence to

warrant the framing of charges against the petitioners under

Section 306/34 IPC in as much as there is no prima facie

evidence to show that the petitioners had instigated, goaded,

cajoled, compelled, persuaded the deceased to commit suicide,

and accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed. The

charges under Section 306/34 IPC against the the petitioners are

set aside and they are discharged of the aforesaid offences.

V.K. SHALI, J.

JULY 21, 2009 KP