Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt Karuna @ Laxmi vs State on 15 March, 2022

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 620/2018

Smt. Karuna @ Laxmi W/o Late Shri Papu Ram, By Caste Meghwal, R/o- Shankar Nagar, Jhalamand, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan

2. Jagdish s/o Mangilal b/c Meghwal, r/o Meghwalon Ka Baas, Jhalamand, Jodhpur.

                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. H.M. Saraswat
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. H.S. Shekhawat

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

15/03/2022

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of

its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

2. This criminal revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the impugned order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) cases, Jodhpur in Session Case No. 131/2017 titled as State V/S Raja Ram & ors. may kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may kindly be discharge from all the charges leveled against her."

3. The brief facts of this case as placed before this Court by the

learned counsel for the petitioner are that the brother of

(2 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

petitioner's late husband, Mr. Pappu Ram, Mr. Jagdish Meghwal

lodged an F.I.R. before the Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur

alleging that the petitioner is liable in abetting the suicide of her

late husband, by causing him grave mental stress by having an

extra marital affair with one Mr. Raju Prajapat. And that, an F.I.R.

was lodged against the petitioner accused under Sections 306 and

201 and the co accused, Raju Prajapat under Sections 458, 323

and 306 of the IPC and under Section 3(2) (V) (a) of the SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989, and that subsequently the

learned Court below framed charges against the petitioner

accused for offences under Sections 306 and 201 of the IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

conditions prescribed under the provisions of law contained in

Sections 306 and 201 IPC are not fulfilled in the present case, and

therefore the petitioner cannot be charged under the same, that

neither has the petitioner caused disappearance of any evidence

pertaining to the case in question, nor giving false or incorrect

information regarding the offence/s in the case in question.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

single piece of evidence relied upon by prosecution is the

testimony of witnesses, to the effect that the following statement

made by the deceased - victim, husband of the petitioner, was

supposedly recorded by the witnesses on a mobile phone, but

which found no mention in the F.I.R. so registered against the

accused petitioner. And that there is also no mention of any

harassment or inducement, by the accused petitioner, to the

deceased - victim to commit suicide.

(3 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for

respondent No.2 submit that the impugned order, dated

16.3.2018, passed by the learned Court below has passed a

reasoned order, and rightly relied upon multiple judgments

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in holding that, at the time of

framing charge, a mere consideration has to be made whether a

prima facie against the accused exits and that a meticulous

appreciation of evidence at this stage would not be required.

For ready reference, sections 201 and 306 of the IPC are

reproduced below:-

"201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.--

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,

if a capital offence.--shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with imprisonment for life.--and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.--and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the

(4 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."

306. Abetment of suicide.--

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."

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

8. This Court finds that the impugned order, dated 16.03.2018

passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) cases, Jodhpur in Session Case No. 131/2017 titled as

State V/S Raja Ram & Ors. states that during the investigation

process, it was ascertained that the accused petitioner deleted the

call records from her phone, which were pertinent to the case in

question, and which is the basis for framing charges specifically

under Section 201 IPC.

9. This Court also finds that in the chargesheet so filed by the

police, it is stated that the deceased victim made a dying

declaration while in the ambulance to the 3 witnesses present with

him, who gave similar testimony that he stated the cause for his

suicide was that his wife was having an extra marital affair over

the previous year with Mr. Raju Prajapat and that Mr. Prajapat

used to mentally and physically harass him and say that the

accused petitioner was in fact his wife. And that, Mr. Prajapat

along with two other unidentified persons came over to his house

and beat him up on the night of 19.12.2016 and threatened him

to not say anything to his wife.

(5 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

10. This Court also takes note of the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

(2019) 17 SCC 301 wherein the following was observed:-

"Thus, "abetment" involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when: (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything.

In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the Accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the Accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of Accused is otherwise

(6 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the Accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the Accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 Indian Penal Code. If the Accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the Accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the Accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the Accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the Accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked. a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the Accused and the deceased.

We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons; and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set ups, education etc. Even the response to the ill-action of eve- teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.

(7 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

11. This Court also takes note of the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhawna Bai Vs. Ghanshyam and Ors.

(2020) 2 SCC 217 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held

asunder:

"As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen."

12. This Court also takes note of the compromise entered into

between the complainant, the accused-petitioner and the co-

accused on 09.04.2021 wherein the parties taking into

consideration the fact that the accused-petitioner and the

deceased victim's children are young boys studying in the 8 th and

10th grade and who would benefit from having their mother with

them.

12.1 This Court however, does not find the same to be a

compelling reason to direct the learned Court below to drop the

charges against the accused-petitioner given the nature of the

offences and the present stage of trial before the learned Court

below. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court derives strength

from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in The

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhruv Gurjar and Ors. (2019)

5 SCC 570 wherein the Hon'ble Court, with regard to effect of

compromise between the complainant and accused persons on an

ongoing criminal trial, observed as under:

" Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Shiji (supra), while quashing the respective FIRs by observing that as the complainant has compromised with the Accused, there is no possibility of recording a conviction, and/or the further trial would be an

(8 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

exercise in futility is concerned, we are of the opinion that the High Court has clearly erred in quashing the FIRs on the aforesaid ground. It appears that the High Court has misread or misapplied the said decision to the facts of the cases on hand. The High Court ought to have appreciated that it is not in every case where the complainant has entered into a compromise with the Accused, there may not be any conviction. Such observations are presumptive and many a time too early to opine. In a given case, it may happen that the prosecution still can prove the guilt by leading cogent evidence and examining the other witnesses and the relevant evidence/material, more particularly when the dispute is not a commercial transaction and/or of a civil nature and/or is not a private wrong. In the case of Shiji (supra), this Court found that the case had its origin in the civil dispute between the parties, which dispute was resolved by them and therefore this Court observed that, 'that being so, continuance of the prosecution where the complainant is not ready to support the allegations...will be a futile exercise that will serve no purpose'. In the aforesaid case, it was also further observed 'that even the alleged two eyewitnesses, however, closely related to the complainant, were not supporting the prosecution version', and to that this Court observed and held 'that the continuance of the proceedings is nothing but an empty formality and Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure can, in such circumstances, be justifiably invoked by the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and thereby preventing a wasteful exercise by the courts below."

13. This Court, in light of the above made observations, finds

that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, with

regard to framing of charges against the accused petitioner has

proceeded on basis of evidence and the chargesheet filed by the

police. And that, the determination of the culpability of the

accused petitioner in the offences that she is so charged with shall

(9 of 9) [CRLR-620/2018]

be determined by the learned Court below at the stage of final

hearing.

14. This Court, therefore, finds that the impugned order does not

suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant any interference by

this Court.