Rohtas Singh & Others vs State & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 4901 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              Judgment delivered on: October 25, 2010

+      CRIMINAL REV. P. NO.816-19/2005

       ROHTAS SINGH & OTHERS             ....PETITIONERS
          Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ajay
                   Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Chaubey,
                   Advocate, Mr. A.K.S. Mishra, Advocate, Mr.
                   Vibhor Agarwal, Advocate & Ms. Gurdeep
                   Kaur, Advocate

                                Versus

       STATE & ANOTHER                         .....RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. R.N. Vats, APP for respondent No.1.

Mr. Z.S. Lohat, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. Shri Rohtas Singh, Ms. Vibha, Shri Vivek and Shri Inder Singh, the

petitioners herein, vide this petition have prayed for quashing of the

order dated 23.09.2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby

he framed charges under Section 120B IPC and Section 306 read with

Section 120B IPC against the petitioners.

2. Briefly stated, relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are

that petitioner Ms.Vibha was married to Anipal, son of the complainant,

who committed suicide on the night intervening 27th/28th August, 1999.

3. Petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.3 is the brother of

petitioner No.2 Vibha. Petitioner No.4 is their family friend.

4. Complainant Ramanand, father of deceased Anipal filed a

complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners alleging

that they, in furtherance of a conspiracy hatched by them, had abetted

commission of suicide by Anipal. It is alleged in the complaint that

soon after the marriage, petitioner No.2 started pressurising and

compelling deceased Anipal to seek division of joint family property

and sell his share with a view to provide a separate house/flat away

from village atmosphere to petitioner No.2. Since Anipal was reluctant

to leave his parents and did not agree to the proposal, there used to be

frequent quarrels and exchange of hot words between them. It is also

alleged in the complaint that petitioner No.2 was employed and

earning handsome salary, but she never gave her salary to Anipal and

instead she used to give her salary to her father, which was another

bone of contention. It is also alleged in the complaint that on

26.08.1999, the day of festival of Rakshabandhan, deceased Anipal

and petitioner No.2 had visited the house of the parents of petitioner

No.2 and when they returned back, Anipal was tense and unhappy. On

enquiry, he told that petitioners No.1 to 3, at the instance and on the

active support of petitioner No.4, had pressurised him to seek partition

of family property and purchase a flat/kothi for petitioner No.2 by

selling his share and that they threatened that in the event of Anipal

failing to seek partition, they would marry petitioner No.2 to someone

else and if her son Lakshaya came in the way of her marriage, he

would be removed from the scene. On the night intervening 27th/28th

August, 1999, Anipal hanged himself with a rope. According to the

complainant Ramanand, Anipal had committed suicide on the

abetment of petitioner No.2 in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy

hatched by the petitioners. Thus, the complainant alleged that the

petitioners may be summoned and prosecuted for the offences

punishable under Sections 306/120B and 452/506(II)/120B IPC.

5. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate conducted preliminary inquiry

and examined three witnesses, including the complainant Ramanand.

On the basis of the inquiry, he came to the conclusion that, prima facie,

commission of the offence under Section 306/120B IPC was made out.

Accordingly, he committed the case to the Sessions Court.

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on consideration of the

allegations in the complaint and the evidence, vide order dated

23.09.2005 concluded that, prima facie, commission of offence under

Section 120B IPC and Section 306 IPC read with Section 120B IPC was

made out, as such he framed charges against all the four petitioners.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

impugned order of framing charges against the petitioners is bad in law

because there is no evidence on record to prima facie support the

contention that the petitioners had hatched a criminal conspiracy or in

furtherance of such criminal conspiracy or otherwise either of the

petitioners have abetted commission of suicide by Anipal. Thus, he has

urged for quashing of the charges against the petitioners and their

discharge.

8. Learned Shri Z.S. Lohat, Advocate appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2/complainant has argued in support of the impugned

order. He has submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge

has rightly framed the charges and that the petition is liable to be

dismissed, firstly on the ground that the petitioners have concealed the

material fact that the earlier petition filed by petitioner No.4 being

Crl.Misc.(M). No.52/2005 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

17.02.2005. He further submitted that this is a case based upon

circumstantial evidence. From the allegations in the complaint as well

as the statement of complainant Ramanand, it is prima facie

established that petitioner No.2, at the instance of petitioners No.1, 3

and 4, used to nag and pressurise the deceased Anipal to seek

partition of joint family property and sell his share to buy a house/flat

for living separately in an environment outside the village, which was

not acceptable to Anipal. Even on 26.08.1999 at the house of

petitioner No.1, all the four petitioners pressurised Anipal for seeking

partition of family property and threatened him that in the event of his

failing to do so, they would marry petitioner No.2 to someone else and

in case the child of Anipal Lakshaya created any hindrance in the

second marriage of petitioner No.2, they would remove him from the

scene. Learned counsel submitted that aforesaid consistent threat and

pressure by the petitioners had pushed Anipal to take drastic step of

committing suicide. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the learned

trial Judge has rightly framed charges against the petitioners.

9. The petitioners have been charged on two counts i.e. for having

committed the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section

120B IPC and the offence of abetment to commit suicide punishable

under Section 306 IPC.

10. Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120A IPC which

provides that when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be

done an illegal act or agree to commit an act which is not illegal by

illegal means, those persons are said to have entered into a criminal

conspiracy.

11. Section 306 IPC provides punishment for abetment of suicide.

Abetment is defined under Section 107 IPC and it provides that a

person abets 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 doing that thing, if an act or illegal

omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to do

that thing or thirdly, intentionally aids by any act or omission for doing

that thing.

12. In view of the above, the charges under Section 120B IPC and

Section 306 IPC read with Section 120B IPC could justifiably be framed

against the petitioners, provided the learned Additional Sessions Judge

was satisfied that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to raise a

reasonable suspicion of involvement of the petitioners in a criminal

conspiracy to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased Anipal

and that in furtherance of said conspiracy, they actually committed the

acts of omission or commission which instigated Anipal to commit

suicide.

13. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper of allegation in

the complaint or in the statement of PW Ramanand to suggest that

petitioner No.2 or for that matter any other petitioner instigated the

commission of suicide by Anipal nor is there prima facie evidence

which may show that the petitioners had entered into a criminal

conspiracy to abet the commission of suicide by Anipal and in

furtherance of that conspiracy, some act was committed. There is

even no evidence to suggest that any of the petitioners aided the

deceased in commission of suicide. Thus, in my view, prima facie the

offences under Section 120B IPC or 306 IPC read with Section 120B IPC

are not made out.

14. Even if the evidence led by the complainant during preliminary

inquiry is taken to be gospel truth, what has come on record is that

petitioner No.2 had been nagging and harassing the deceased to seek

partition of family property and life separately after buying a house/flat

and that she did not give her salary to her husband and instead she

used to give her salary to her father. This by itself cannot be taken as a

circumstance to infer that the petitioners had hatched a conspiracy to

abet the commission of suicide by Anipal or in furtherance of that

conspiracy they abetted the offence of suicide. Instigating a person

denotes inciting or urging that person to do some drastic or inadvisable

act or to stimulate or incite him to commit that act. The presence of

mens rea is necessary to constitute instigation. Asking the deceased

to seek partition from his joint family or failure by petitioner No.2 to

give her salary to the deceased cannot be taken as the circumstances

to infer that there was a conspiracy amongst the petitioners to

instigate Anipal to commit suicide or that in furtherance of the

conspiracy they abetted the suicide. If the deceased Anipal due to

infirmity of mind, under some strain or depression has committed

suicide, the blame cannot be placed upon petitioner No.2 or the other

petitioners.

15. Thus, under the circumstances, I find that the complainant has

failed to provide sufficient evidence on record which may justify the

framing of charges under Section 120B or Section 306 IPC read with

Section 120B IPC. In my aforesaid view, I seek strength from the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sanju @ Sanju Singh

Sengar V.State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371.

16. In view of the discussion above, revision is allowed and the

charges framed against the petitioners are set aside. They are

accordingly discharged.

(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE

OCTOBER 25, 2010 pst/ks