Ajit Singh vs The State (Government Of Nct Of ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2138 Del

                                        REPORTED
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     BAIL APPLICATION NO.530/2009

                                          DATE OF RESERVE: May 8, 2009

                                        DATE OF DECISION: May 19, 2009

      AJIT SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
                           Through: Mr. R.S. Malik, Mr. V.K. Malik and
                                    Mr. Siddharth Ahlawat, Advocates
                versus
      THE STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)           ..... Respondent
                       Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for the State along
                                with Investigating Officer Inspector
                                Samarjeet Singh, P.S. Sultan Puri
                                Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate for the
                                complainant
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

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

:     REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.690/2008,

registered under Sections 306/34 IPC with P.S. Sultan Puri, Delhi.

2. The facts of the case, as set out in the chargesheet are that on

23.11.2008, on receipt of D.D.No.8-A, Sub Inspector Saroop Singh along with

Constable Rakshak reached the place of occurrence, i.e., the Gher of Raj

Singh, son of Bhim Singh, Village Pooth Kalan, where several persons had

gathered. The dead body of Raj Singh, aged about 65 years, was found

hanging from the branch of a Neem tree in the said plot. His shoes were lying

on the floor and his shawl was near the tree. Satwant Singh and Bharat Singh,

the two sons of the deceased, were found present at the spot. The dead body

of Raj Singh was brought down after cutting the rope. From the personal

search of the deceased, a suicide note was recovered from the upper pocket of

his shirt, wherein it was stated:-

"Dated 23.11.08 I, Raj Singh, S/o Bhim Singh, My family which include Ajit Singh S/o Deep Chand and his three sons have made my life and the lives of my children miserable. They have made our lives difficult. Therefore, considering myself unfortunate, so I am taking this step. My children should be able to live peacefully so I am taking this step. Moreover, my children are not responsible for it.

Your's Raj Singh Pooth Kalan, House No.176"

3. On the same day, i.e., on 23.11.2008 at about 11.20 a.m., Satwant

Singh, son of deceased Raj Singh, got recorded his statement at the spot,

stating that he was residing at 176, Pooth Kalan, Delhi and that a plot

measuring 80 sq. yards falling in Khasra No.55/20, at Village Rithala, Delhi

existed in the name of his father (the deceased Raj Singh), where a boundary

wall had been constructed by them and the same was in their possession for

the last 25 years. Since the last two months, his father's cousin, Ajit Singh and

his three sons, namely Anil, Ashish and Ajay, had been extending threats to

their lives in order to grab the said plot. On 22.11.2008, the said Ajit Singh

and his three sons came at the plot and started digging a trench/foundation. At

that time, he along with his father Raj Singh, his brother Bharat and his sister

Sunita, was present in the nearby area. Ajay and Anil (the sons of Ajit Singh)

attacked him and his father with a broken Campa Cola bottle, whereupon

Sunita intervened, who sustained injury on her hand. Bharat informed the

police at No.100 and the police from the Vijay Vihar Police Station came and

took him, his father Raj Singh and his brother Bharat as well as Ajit Singh and

his sons Anil and Ajay, to the Police Station. There, Ajit Singh and his sons

again threatened to kill them. The same night Ajit Singh and his sons came to

their house and banged on their door with dandas, asking them to open their

door as they wanted to kill them. As a result of the harassment caused by Ajit

Singh and his sons, who had also threated that they would kidnap his sister,

and because of the prevalent tension of the last many months, his father had

committed suicide.

4. On the aforesaid statement of Satwant Singh, a case under Section 306

read with Section 34 IPC was got registered by SI Saroop Singh after sending

the 'tehrir' to the police station, and, thereafter investigation was handed over

to the SHO Inspector Samarjeet Singh, who obtained the post-mortem report

of the deceased, which opined the cause of death to be "asphyxia as a result of

ante-mortem ligature hanging". On 25.11.2008, the petitioner Ajit Singh was

arrested and the admitted handwriting and signature of the deceased Raj Singh

was taken from his son Bharat Solanki and the State Bank of Patiala, Pooth

Kalan, Delhi, whereafter the admitted documents and the questioned

document (the suicide note of the deceased) were deposited in the FSL for

comparison. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet against

the petitioner Ajit Singh was filed on 24.01.2009. The three sons of the

petitioner were, however, not arrested in the case as no specific evidence was

found by the police to prosecute them under Section 306 IPC, and their names

were accordingly kept in Column No.2 of the charge-sheet.

5. In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate, contended that the petitioner, who has been in

custody ever since 25.11.2008, deserved to be released on bail, as nothing had

emerged on record to show that there was any instigation on the part of the

petitioner within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, so as to

justify the registration of the offence of abetment to suicide under Section 306

of the Code. The learned counsel heavily relied upon the judgments of this

Court in Hira Lal Jain Vs. State, 2000(2) JCC 478, Umesh Gupta Vs. State,

122(2005) DLT 473, Neeraj Gupta Vs. State, 2006(3) JCC 1221 and

Prashant Manchanda Vs. Lt.Governor of Delhi & Another, 139(207) DLT

423, and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of

M.P. & Another, 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 438, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002(2) JCC 847, Mahendra Singh Vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh, 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731 and Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 in this regard. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State, Mr.Manoj Ohri, on the other hand, implicitly relied

upon the suicide note, allegedly written by the deceased, squarely blaming the

petitioner and his three sons for his death, on the ground that they had made

his life and the lives of his three sons insufferable.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended that

from the revenue records, that is, from the Khatuni of Khasra No.55/20, it was

evident that the petitioner was the owner of one half share, whereas the

deceased Raj Singh and his brother Karan Singh had joint share in respect of

the other half of the plot. The real bone of contention, he submitted, was that

the family of the deceased had occupied an area more than their share, which

had led to the dispute. The legitimate claim of the petitioner and his family to

get their half share in the aforesaid Khasra, by no stretch of imagination,

could be considered to be an act of "abetment" within the meaning of

Section 306 IPC. The present FIR had been registered without there being an

iota of evidence of any abetment, instigation or the like on the part of the

petitioner, or any incitement of the deceased Raj Singh to commit suicide, and

hence the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 306 were lacking. The

investigation in the present case had been concluded and the charge-sheet had

been filed in the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate, and no fruitful

purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in jail, more so, as the

petitioner is a senior citizen with clean antecedents and has no chance of

absconding being a permanent resident of Delhi.

7. First, a look at Section 107 of the Code. The said section defines

abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly,

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. Explanations 1 and 2 of Section 107, which

are apposite read as under:-

"Explanation 1. - A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful 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.

Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

8. From a reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that a person, who

instigates or aids another to do a thing, abets him to do that thing. In order to

attract the offence of abetment of commission of suicide, thus, an overt act or

some act or omission, which instigates/aids the victim to commit suicide is a

sine qua non. Not only this, the said act or omission must be the immediate

cause of the suicide. In other words, it is in the essence of things that the

abettor substantially assists towards the commission of the offence. This is

evident from the whole tone and tenor of the Section which uses doing words

(verbs) such as "instigates", "engages", "aids by any act or illegal

omission", "misrepresents", "conceals", "causes or procures", "attempts",

"facilitates" and the like. That the presence of mensrea is a necessary

concomitant of the offence of abetment is also crystal clear from the

legislature's use of the words/phrases "intentionally", "voluntarily" and "by

wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment". These then are the

parameters laid down by Section 107 of the Code.

9. In this backdrop, it is deemed expedient to highlight a few relevant facts

set out in the charge-sheet and the status report filed in the instant case. It is

expressly stated in the chargesheet that the land of Khasra No.55/20 Village

Rithala, Delhi was in the joint names of the petitioner Ajit Singh, deceased Raj

Singh and his elder brother Karan Singh, and this was the genesis of the

dispute between the respective families of the deceased Raj Singh and the

petitioner Ajit Singh. During investigation, the involvement of the sons of the

petitioner, namely Anil, Ashish and Ajay, however, was ruled out as no

evidence could be garnered against them and, as already stated, their names

were shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. In the status report filed by the

SHO Mohinder Singh, P.S. Sultan Puri too, it is mentioned that preventive

action under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. against both the parties, i.e., Raj Singh

(now deceased) and his sons Satwant Singh and Bharat Singh (party No.1) and

Ajit Singh (the petitioner herein) and his son Anil Kumar (party No.2), was

initiated on 22.11.2008, vide DD No.7 dated 22.11.2008, Police Post Budh

Vihar, Police Station Vijay Vihar, Delhi.

10. A bare perusal of the Kalandra in the said case further shows that it has

been recorded therein that the dispute between the parties pertained to a plot of

land viz., D-1/57, Sharma Colony, Budh Vihar Phase-II, in respect of which

both the parties claimed proprietary rights, and that both the parties had family

relations and belonged to the same village, but instead of sorting out their

disputes in a court of law, both the parties frequently quarrelled about the

apportionment/partition of the plot and filed complaints, written and verbal

against each other. Thus, despite the fact that the dispute was civil in nature

and should have been sorted out by the parties in a court of law, both the

parties refused to approach a court of law, preferring instead to bicker and

squabble.

11. The fact that there was a dispute regarding the demarcation of the plot

of land in question between the family of the deceased and the family of the

petitioner, assuming the prosecution story to be correct in its entirety, by itself,

in my opinion, cannot lead to the conclusion that the petitioner abetted the

deceased in the commission of suicide. Even if the suicide note (in respect of

which the FSL report is still awaited), is conclusively proved to be in the hand

of the deceased, the same, in my view, in no manner substantiates the

statement of the complainant that the deceased died on account of

incitement/abetment on the part of the petitioner. Words uttered in rage or

anger or in the course of a quarrel, or abuses, taunts and threats traded in the

course of a dispute, without intending the consequences to actually follow, it is

well settled, do not amount to instigation. In the instant case, the parties are

stated to be warring against each other for a considerable period of time over

the demarcation of the plot of land, in which both have half share each.

Threats meted out to the deceased, assuming that they were meted out, cannot

be said to amount to instigation and may, at best, amount to harassment. Even

otherwise, the incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 22.11.2008

during the daytime finds no mention in the suicide note, nor the incident of

the same night finds any reference in the last missive of the deceased nor the

deceased has even alleged that he was threatened or intimidated in any

manner. No MLC of Sunita, who is alleged to be injured in the said incident,

has been placed on record to substantiate the occurrence of the incident. Not

only this, investigations have revealed that the sons of Ajit Singh had no role

to play and a clean chit has been doled out to them by the prosecution, thereby

falsifying the version of Satwant Singh (both with regard to the incident which

allegedly took place in the morning and at night), and leading to the inference

that the entire story with regard to the extending of threats on 22.11.2008 has

been concocted by the complainant, possibly for the purpose of arm twisting

the petitioner. This apart, the story is not corroborated by any neighbour or

any other public witness. Then again, the dispute was admittedly an old one.

When and why the mind of the deceased started harbouring suicidal thoughts

can only be a matter of conjecture and surmise. Impulsiveness, desperation,

frustration, anger or even undue or hyper sensitivity could have actuated the

thought of suicide. Whatever be it, it cannot be lost sight of that the

prosecution's own case is that the suicide was the result of a petty civil dispute

blown out of all proportion. If it led to the deceased extinguishing his own life,

the blame cannot be thrown at someone else's door, even if he is an adversary

or an enemy. There is, therefore, considerable merit in the contention of the

petitioner's counsel that the petitioner in no manner spurred or assisted the

strangulation of the deceased, which was self-inflicted in every sense of the

word.

12. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction that the

petitioner, who has already suffered incarceration for almost six months, be

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-

with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial

court.

13. Needless to state that any observations made in the present order shall

have no bearing on the merits of the case as and when the same are considered

by the learned trial court and that the same have been made for the sole

purpose of consideration of the bail plea of the petitioner.

14. Bail Application No.530 of 2009 stands allowed in the above terms.

A copy of this order be given 'dasti' to the counsel for the petitioner.

REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

MAY 19, 2009 aks