State Of Raj vs Shyam Lal And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6870 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 134/2001

State Of Raj

----Petitioner Versus Shyam Lal And Others

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 66/2001 Kishan Lal Tailor

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

----Respondent

CRLR No.134/01 For State/ Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Bhati PP For Accused/Resp. : Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari on VC

CRLR No.66/01 For Comp./ Pet. : Mr. Shreyash Ramdev, Amicus Curiae For State/ Resp. : Mr. S.K. Bhati PP For Accused/Resp. : Mr. Himanshu Maheshwari on VC.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

09/05/2022

1. In 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 Court, for the safety of

all concerned.

2. Mr. Shreyash Ramdev, Advocate is appointed as Amicus

Curiae to argue the matter on behalf of the complainant-petitioner

(in Revision Petition No.66/2001) under the free legal aid scheme

(2 of 7) [CRLR-134/2001]

of RSLSA. His remuneration shall be paid by the Rajasthan State

Legal Services Authority as per the rules.

3. The assailment in the present revision petitions - by the

State and the complainant, respectively - preferred under Section

397 read with Section 401 Cr.PC. is common.

3.1 Both the instant petitions have been preferred seeking

quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.11.2000 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case

No.88/2000, whereby the accused-respondents were discharged,

at the stage of framing of charges, of the offence under Section

306 IPC, for which they were charged.

4. The bone of contention in the present case is the suicide

committed by one Ajay Kumar on 31.01.2000, under the alleged

mental torture and harassment on the part of his wife and in-laws,

on one pretext or the other; accordingly, a report was submitted

by one Kishan Lal Tailor (complainant/petitioner herein) on

24.02.2000 before the Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara which

culminated into registration of a case for the offence under Section

306 IPC and the necessary investigation; the accused-respondents

were charged for the said offence. However, the learned trial court

vide the impugned order dated 28.11.2000, discharged the

accused-respondents of the criminal charge, as above.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of petitioner-

State as well as learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner

submits that the deceased-victim Ajay Kumar was married to

accused-respondent Shashi Kala, and immediately thereafter, she

went to her parents house at Bhilwara; many a times, the in-laws

of the deceased-victim pressurized him to leave his village and

reside at Bhilwara, failing which, the deceased-victim was

(3 of 7) [CRLR-134/2001]

threatened of dire consequences, viz., false implication of the

deceased-victim and his family into a criminal case; under such

threat however, the deceased victim went to Bhilwara, where he

resided in a rented premises alongwith his wife (accused-Shashi

Kala) for about a year. As per learned counsel, during such period,

the in-laws of the deceased-victim kept on demanding

Rs.30,000/-, it was also told that in case the deceased-victim fails

to fulfill such demand, the same would result into false implication

of the deceased-victim and his family members.

5.1 Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, the

deceased-victim left Bhilwara and went to resident in Badnor,

where he used to earn his livelihood by doing the work as

labourer; however, despite that, the demand of Rs.30,000/- and

ornaments, and the otherwise threatening on the part of the

accused-respondents continued; at one point of time i.e.

27.01.2000 and 30.01.2000, the deceased-victim was called by

his in-laws at Bhilwara, where on count of non-fulfillment of the

aforesaid demand, the accused-respondents locked the deceased-

victim in a room and also subjected him to immense humiliation

and harassment, followed by reiteration of the aforesaid demand,

and the consequential threat in case of non-fulfillment of such

demand.

5.2 Learned counsel thus, submits that under such compelling

circumstances, wherein the deceased-victim was subjected to

immense threat, humiliation, harassment and mental torture by

the accused-respondents, the deceased-victim extinguished his

life-spark by committing suicide.

5.3 Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that though in the

note written by the deceased, preceding the date of the suicide,

(4 of 7) [CRLR-134/2001]

there was no mention of Rs.30,000/-, demand whereof had been

made from the deceased-Ajay Kumar (victim) by his in-laws, nor

there was a mention of any harassment having been caused to

him by his in-laws, but whatever evidence has come on record

before the learned trial court, made it clear that the said amount

was certainly demanded by the in-laws of the deceased-victim;

the evidence also shows that for fulfilling the said demand, the

deceased-victim borrowed such amount from many persons, but

the purpose of such borrowing was not disclosed by the deceased-

victim, out of hesitation. As per learned Public Prosecutor, the

factum of such borrowing was substantiated by the contents of the

diary written by the deceased-victim, wherein he had mentioned

the names of one Gautam Chand and other persons, from whom

deceased-victim borrowed money, to be given to his in-laws.

5.4 Learned counsel thus submits that without due appreciation

of the evidence placed before it and without taking into

consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

including the abetment/instigation, on the part of the accused-

respondents, in commission of the suicide by the deceased-victim,

the learned trial court vide the impugned order discharged the

accused-respondents, and hence, the impugned order is not

sustainable in the eye of law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused-

respondents submits that following the alleged suicide by the

deceased-victim on 31.01.2000, the police conducted the

proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in the presence of his

family members and the complainant himself, but as on that day,

no report was lodged by the complainant; it was only after expiry

of a long period of 24 days from the date of the alleged suicide,

(5 of 7) [CRLR-134/2001]

the report in question was lodged by the complainant in

connection with the alleged suicide; if the contents of the report

are read and interpreted as it is, then also no case for abetment in

commission of the alleged suicide can be made out against the

accused-respondents.

6.1 Learned counsel further submits that as per the suicide note

written by the deceased-victim, he was very affectionate towards

his wife and he admired her as well, though he was having a

grievance that his father-in-law, did not let the deceased-victim's

wife to visit and stay with him; further, as per the said note, the

deceased-victim got frustrated with the ongoing litigation between

him and the other concerned parties.

6.2 Learned counsel thus submits that the suicide note, as

aforementioned, does not indicate anything which could connect

the present accused-respondents with the alleged suicide, more

particularly, any abetment on their part in commission of the

incident of suicide. Learned counsel further submits that it is a

settled principle of law that the pre-requisite for saddling any

criminal liability against any person, there must be a direct

connection between the abetment and the suicide; in the present

case, the prosecution clearly failed to prove and establish any

such connection against the accused-respondents herein, and

thus, on that basis, the learned trial court has discharged the

accused-respondents from the offence under Section 306 IPC.

6.3 Learned counsel thus submits that the learned trial court has

passed the impugned order of discharge in favour of the accused-

respondents after a careful and detailed consideration of the

overall facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with

due appreciation of each and every aspect of the case and the

(6 of 7) [CRLR-134/2001]

evidence placed on record, as per its necessity, at the stage of

framing of charge. Thus, as per learned counsel the present

petitions being devoid of any substance, deserve dismissal by this

Court.

6.4 After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as

perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the learned

trial court has made due appreciation, to the extent required at

the stage of framing of charging, of the evidence placed on record,

before passing the impugned order of discharge against the

present accused-respondents.

6.5 This Court finds that the learned trial court, as per the

settled principle of law, applied the prima facie test, before

passing the impugned order, while finding the case to be tilting in

favour of the accused-respondents. The learned trial court has

strengthened its findings by cogent reasons, viz. compromise

between the husband and wife, followed by their going to watch a

movie, few days prior to the alleged suicide, the deceased being

affectionate towards his wife (as reflected from the suicide note);

no evidence regarding any presence of any cogent reason so as to

compel the deceased to commit suicide, more particularly, under

the abetment having been extended by the accused-respondents.

This Court also finds that the learned trial court has rightly found

that there was no evidence available on record so as to connect

the alleged abetment on the part of the accused-respondents with

the incident of suicide in question.

7. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court does not

find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the

learned trial court, so as to warrant any interference by this Court.

                                                                              (7 of 7)                   [CRLR-134/2001]



                                   8.    Consequently,     the     present       petitions       are   dismissed.   All

pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned

court below be sent back forthwith.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

37-38-SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)