Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dulari vs Kali Ram And Ors on 1 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048630
CRM-A-72-MA-2015 (O&M) -1 2024:PHHC:048630
225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-A-72-MA-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision:01.04.2024
Smt. Dulari ...Appellant
Vs.
Kali Ram and Others ...Respondents
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present: Mr. Pankaj Attri, Advocate for
Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate
for the appellant.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J.
CRM-1635-2015
1. The applicant/appellant had filed the present application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 56 days in filing the
present appeal before this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and
perused the record.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the minimal delay of
56 days in filing the present appeal is ordered to be condoned.
Main case
1. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 378
(4) Cr. P.C with a prayer to grant special leave to appeal from the judgment
dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal,
whereby the respondents were ordered to be acquitted of the charge under
Section 306 of IPC.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048630
CRM-A-72-MA-2015 (O&M) -2 2024:PHHC:048630
2. The complaint under Section 306/34 of IPC was filed by the
applicant/complainant against the respondents by alleging that Madan Lal
(since deceased), her husband was working on a boring machine for the last few
years with Kali Ram, respondent No.1/owner of the said machine. The
respondents/accused are related to each other. The boring work was being
carried out in U.P and Haryana on contract basis, where Madan Lal was also
working on contract-cum-salary basis with respondent No.1. In the year 2005,
all the accused and Madan Lal were boring a tubewell near Haridwar and in that
process, one length of pipe got struck up under the ground and the respondent
No.1 assessed the total loss of Rs.2.50 lacs. All the accused hatched a
conspiracy and blamed Madan Lal for that loss and told him that a loss of
Rs.2.50 lacs had occurred due to him and he was liable to pay the loss suffered
by respondent No.1. As such an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month would be
deduted from the salary of the Madan Lal, which caused mental stress to him.
Even a Panchayat was convened, however, under the influence of
respondents/accused no decision could be taken by the Panchayat and
respondent No.1 threatened the Madan Lal. Madan Lal was working under great
stress and Rs.2000/- per month being deducted from his salary. He remained
mentally upset due to the humiliation and pressure of the accused. On
04.12.2006, again the boring work was going on at Village Kairwali and length
of pipe again got struck in a pit of borewell and the boring machine had broken
down and the accused had blamed Madan Lal and started harassing him. He
was mercilessly beaten up by the respondents/accused also. At this stage,
Madan Lal made a phone call to his wife, who is the applicant/complainant and
narrated the whole story to her. On 04.12.2006, Madan Lal shared everything
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048630
CRM-A-72-MA-2015 (O&M) -3 2024:PHHC:048630
with his brother namely Ram Pal.
3. As per the case of the complainant, in the night on 04.12.2006,
respondent No.1 came to her house and told her that he had received a message
that Madan Lal was ill. On this, Mohinder and Labh Singh, brother of the
Madan Lal and respondent No.1 searched for Madan Lal and when they
searched near Indri, respondent No.1 informed that he was further told by
Sukhbir that Madan Lal had committed suicide by hanging himself. Respondent
No.1 also confessed that Madan Lal had died due to the pressure exerted by
him. The respondents threatened Mohinder and Labh Singh and not to report
the matter to the police. But defying the pressure from the accused, the matter
was reported and ultimately one FIR No. 31 dated 02.03.2007 under Section
306/34 of IPC was registered, but the police did not take any action against the
accused.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the Trial
Court had completely overlooked the evidence led by the prosecution in the
present case and had only taken into consideration the evidence led by the
respondents/accused. He further contends that the due to the constant
harassment by the respondents, Madan Lal had committed suicide by hanging
himself. While referring to the testimony of PW-1 Dulari, learned counsel
submitted that all the allegations were duly proved by the complainant in her
evidence. Even as per her, the deceased was being confined and he was working
under the direct control of the respondents as a bounded labourer. Even the
information regarding death of Madan Lal was shared by respondent No.1.
Apart from that, the testimony of PW-1, Dulari complainant had been supported
by the Rampal son of Jai Singh. Even, from the testimonies of these two
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048630
CRM-A-72-MA-2015 (O&M) -4 2024:PHHC:048630
witnesses, it was conclusively proved that the respondents had harassed and
humiliated Madan Lal to such an extent that he was left with no other option but
to commit suicide. Thus, the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of
IPC were fulfilled and the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and
perused the record.
6. In the present case, the main contention raised on behalf of the
applicant was that the Madan Lal was under the employment of respondent
No.1 and during the process of his employment, he was harassed, humiliated
and tortured. However, the evidence led by the parties, clearly suggested to the
contrary as it is clear from the testimony of Pahal Singh, the owner of the field,
where the boring machine was working. It is apparent that the boring machine
belonged to Sahab Singh resident of Village Kairwali, District Karnal and
Madan Lal (since deceased) was foreman on the said machine. Even on
04.12.2006, the machine had not remained out of order and there was no such
incident of malfunctioning of the boring machine and no pipe was struck. Even
Madan Lal, Foreman, since deceased did not have any dispute or quarrel with
any person. Rather on 03.12.2006, a call was received by Madan Lal (deceased)
from his wife (who is the complainant) in his presence regarding dispute of
distribution of property and family settlement of the house. On this Madan Lal,
asked for money for the settlement from DW-6 Pahal Singh. However, DW-6
Pahal Singh told him that he should complete his work first and then he will
make the payment to Sahab Singh Contractor, who will further pay the money
to Madan Lal. Thus, it stands established from the evidence that Madan Lal was
not working with respondent No.1 and the version of complainant did not
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048630
CRM-A-72-MA-2015 (O&M) -5 2024:PHHC:048630
inspire confidence. Still further, the prosecution could not lead any evidence to
prove that the respondents had created such an atmosphere and had humiliated
and tortured Madan Lal to such an extent that he was left with no other option
except to commit suicide. Even the testimony of PW-1 Dulari, complainant has
been discussed in detail by the Trial Court and the Trial Court had rightly
recorded that the complainant and other witnesses of the prosecution could not
disclose the phone number on which the call was received by Madan Lal. Even,
she stated that her husband had left suicide note, but no evidence was led by the
complainant in this regard on the file. During the course of arguments, also she
could not handover any suicide note to the police. Apart from that, the
testimony of PW-2 Ram Pal was correctly discarded by the Trial Court. Even
the statement of PW-2 Ram Pal remained totally uncorroborated. Still further,
the evidence with regard to the holding of Panchayat was clearly missing in
the present case.
7. Apart from that, I have perused the findings recorded by the Trial
Court. In the present case, the Trial Court has correctly recorded that the
complainant had failed to establish that the accused were responsible for the
suicide of her husband, Madan Lal and had in any manner instigated, provoked
or insited him to commit suicide. Even the case was investigated by the police
in detail and the defence had examined DW-2 ASI Jatinder Kumar, DW-3 Siri
Dutt Inspector, DW-4 Sube Singh Inspector and from the testimonies of these
official witnesses, it was clear that no substance was found in the allegations
levelled by the present applicant/complainant. Even otherwise, the Trial Court
had recorded detailed findings based on correct appreciation of evidence and
this Court finds no reason to deviate from the same. In view of the above
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048630
CRM-A-72-MA-2015 (O&M) -6 2024:PHHC:048630
discussion, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated
12.09.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal and the
same is ordered to be upheld.
8. As a consequence, the present application is ordered to be
dismissed and prayer for grant of special leave to appeal is ordered to be
declined.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
01.04.2024 JUDGE
hitesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
