Uttarakhand High Court

State Of Uttarakhand vs Praveen Nautiyal & Another on 6 March, 2024

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                                   AT NAINITAL
                       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
                                          AND
                        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                     GOVERNMENT APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2013
                               06TH MARCH, 2024
State of Uttarakhand                                                   .....Appellant.
                                        Versus
Praveen Nautiyal & another                                          ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant                    :         Mr.    G.S.    Sandhu, learned
                                                       Additional    Advocate General
                                                       assisted by Ms. Mamta Joshi,
                                                       learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1              :         Mr. R.S. Sammal, Mr. Prabhakar
                                                       Joshi, Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned
                                                       counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent No.2              :         Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Verma,
                                                       learned counsel.

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)

The State has come up in appeal against the judgment

dated 16.0.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Uttarakhand in Session Trial No.03 of 2012, whereby respondent

no.1- Praveen Nautiyal has been acquitted for the offence

punishable under Section 306 IPC, and respondent no.2- Sunil

Jayara has been acquitted for the offence punishable under

Sections 376 and 306 IPC.

2. The victim in the present case was 30 years, and was a

teacher staying along on rent in a house of P.W.2- Ram Prakash

Raturi. She committed suicide on 04.09.2011. On the basis of the

complaint (Annexure-2), on 06.09.2011, FIR No.15/011 was

registered (Exhibit A-7), under Section 306 IPC.

3. After investigation, challan was presented against the

respondents. The charge-sheet has been filed against respondent

no.1 under Section 306, and against respondent no.2 under

Sections 376 and 306 IPC. After filing the charge-sheet, following

witnesses were examined:-

"P.W.1 Vishnu Dutt; P.W.2 Ram Prakash Raturi;P.W.3 Yogesh Dutt; P.W.4 Rajendra Singh; P.W.5 Woman Constable Premlata; P.W.6 Dr. Anand Singh Rana; P.W.7 Head Constable Tez Singh; P.W.8 Vijendra Pratap Rai; P.W.9 Constable Upendra Singh; P.W.10 Constable Subhash Rawat; P.W.11 Dr. Praveen Panwar; P.W.12 S.I. Sundar Lal; P.W.13 S.I. Hukam Singh Rauthan; P.W.14 Constable Sanjay Tomar; P.W.15 Smt. Rani Devi; P.W.16 Constable Amit Rana; and, P.W.17 S.I. Sanjay Chauhan".

4. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence

led by the prosecution, acquitted the accused. No offence under

Section 376 IPC was made out against the accused- Sunil Jayara,

as the victim was 30 years of age, and she was in relationship out

of her own consent. Further, as per the medical report, the victim

was six months' pregnant, and as per the DNA Profiling Report

dated 27.09.2011 (at Page No.46 of the paper-book), Sunil Jayara

was the biological father of the child in the womb of the victim.

5. The Trial Court has further observed that as per the

evidence given by P.W.2 Ram Prakash Raturi, who was the

landlord where the deceased was residing, the respondents had

not come to meet the victim for the last two months, however, on

being investigation the telephonic calls, both were in touch with

the victim, but they had not visited her for the last two months.

6. Keeping in view the above facts, the offence under

Section 107 IPC was not made out against Sunil Jayara, as he had

not abetted the victim to commit suicide, and since the victim was

30 years old educated woman, and she was in relationship out of

her own consent, even the offence under Section 376 IPC is not

made out against Sunil Jayara.

7. Further, the Trial Court was examining the suicide note,

which is at Page Nos.10 and 10A. A perusal of the allegations in

the suicide note at Page No.10 was that some people are troubling

the victim and she does not know the reason of troubling her, and

in future, something bad happens then, these people are

responsible, and they have spoiled the environment of the house

of the victim. She has referred to the behavior of Praveen

Nautiyal, who is troubling her, and she has also stated that

attempts have been made to cause injury to her.

8. As per the FSL report (Page No.22 of the paper-book),

the suicide note was written by the victim. However, a perusal of

the suicide note shows that there is no allegation against Sunil

Jayara. It is only against Praveen Nautiyal. Since, even in the

suicide note, no allegation was made against Sunil Jayara, who, as

per DNA Profiling Report dated 27.09.2011 (at Page No.46 of the

paper-book), was the biological father of the child in the womb of

the victim.

9. The question for consideration now is whether against

Sunil Jayara and Praveen Nautiyal, offence under Section 107

abetment to commit suicide, was made out or not.

10. The law on this subject has been considered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ramesh Kumar vs. State

of Chhattisgarh", (2001) 9 SCC 618. While referring to the

offence of abetment under Section 107, the Supreme Court has

examined the meaning of the word 'instigation'. The Supreme

Court was examining the case where the deceased was married to

the accused and within one year of the marriage, the deceased

committed suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting

herself on fire. In her dying declaration recorded by an Executive

Magistrate, she had stated that previously there had been quarrel

between the deceased and her husband and on the day of

occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that

she could go wherever she wanted to go and thereafter, she had

poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. With respect to

the statement given by the husband, the Supreme Court

examined the suicide note and held that as per the statement of

the husband, he had freed her, and she impulsively took steps to

kill herself. Hence, the very fact that the husband said that she

could go wherever she wanted to go, would not amount to mean

that the accused had made the deceased free to commit suicide.

In Paragraph Nos.20 and 21, the Supreme Court has observed as

under:-

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty".

11. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mohit Singhal & another vs. State of Uttarakhand & others,

(2024) 1 SCC 417, again while examining the requirement of

Section 107 IPC, held that to attract the provisions of abetment

under Section 107 IPC, there should be some instigation on the

part of accused to cause deceased to commit suicide. The accused

must have mens rea to instigate deceased to commit suicide, and

the instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push

deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice

but to commit suicide, and such instigation must be in close

proximity to act of committing suicide. In Paragraph Nos.9 and 10,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"9. Section 306 IPC makes abetment to commit suicide as an offence. Section 107 IPC, which defines the "abetment of a thing", reads thus:

"107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -

First.-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 of that thing, the doing of that thing.

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."

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the facts of the case, Secondly and Thirdly in Section 107, will have no application. Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of committing suicide."

12. Applying the ratio of the above two judgments to the

facts of the present case, as per the suicide note, no allegation

was made against Sunil Jayara, even though, as per the DNA

Profiling Report dated 27.09.2011 (at Page No.46 of the paper-

book), Sunil Jayara was the biological father of the child in the

womb of the victim, and with respect to Praveen Nautiyal, as per

the evidence given by P.W.2 Ram Prakash Raturi, who was the

landlord where the deceased was residing, both Sunil Jayara and

Praveen Nautiyal had not visited the house of the deceased for last

two months, and even the allegation against Praveen Nautiyal in

the suicide note was that he was troubling her and attempts have

been made to cause injury to her.