Hari Singh and Another vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Yamin, J.—This is a revision against the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bali dated 8.4.1992 by which he framed charge u/s 306 IPC against the petitioners.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.

Briefly stated a report was lodged on 24.10.1991 at 6.00 P.M. by petitioner No. 1 Hari Singh that his real brother Mangal Singh fell in well. He died due to grievous injuries. An inquiry was conducted u/s 174 Cr. P.C. and a case u/s 306 IPC was registered. After usual investigation challan was submitted against Hari Singh and Bhanwar Singh. The case of the prosecution is that Heri Singh and Mangal Singh deceased had a joint well. Construction work was going on. It was decided between the two brothers that the expenses incurred will be shared by both of them. Mangal Singh was a poor man and not in a position to pay his share. A quarrel took place between Hari Singh and Mangal Singh wherein it is alleged that Hari Singh said that in case he was not able to pay expenses he should go and fall in a well. Thereupon Mangal Singh committed suicide by falling himself in a well. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the basis of this evidence framed charge u/s 306 IPC against the petitioners.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners did not add or abet the offence and, therefore, the charge framed against the petitioners is totally groundless. He cited 1985 (10) RCC 257, Gautam Raj Mehta Vs The State of Rajasthan in which following words were used-

rw esjk fj''rsnkj gS A rwus gekjh cnukeh djok nh A blls rks vPNk gksrk rw ej tkrk A

He also cited Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Motilal and Others, in which Sahab Kaur was retorted and was said that if she was true daughter of her father she might commit suicide by burning herself. This led to the committal of suicide by Sahab Kaur. He also cited 1997 Cri L.R. 620. Ramesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan He also cited 1994 CrI L.R. 249. Manish Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan in which the deceased committed suicide when she was retorted following words-

jaMh rw ejrh D;ks ugh gSA esjs lkFk py ugh rks rq>s tku ls ekj nawxk A

In these citations it was held that on the facts offence u/s 306 IPC was not made out.

In a case decided by me reported in 1997 Cri. L.R. 620 . Ramesh Chandra Vs State of Rajasthan it has been held that word abetment as used in Section 107 IPC means that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a 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. There is nothing on record in this case that the petitioners intended or wanted the deceased to commit suicide and thus in any way abetted it. The Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in 1999 Cri. L.R. (SC) 41. Swamy Prahaladdas Vs State of M.P and Anr. has held that when the deceased committed suicide and the remarks used were "to go and die" which were casual in nature which are often employed in the heat of moment, it cannot be said that the suicide was the direct result of words uttered, is not acceptable. It was held that in such cases there should be reflection of mens-rea. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in 1999 Cr. L.R. 152 Chanchal Kumari and Ors. Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh, it has been held that there should be intention to abet suicide. In the present case there, is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had such a mens rea or intention that the deceased should commit suicide. Consequently they should not have been charged with offence u/s 306 IPC. I am conscious that even strong suspicion can be the basis to frame charge. In this case, no such circumstance is found.

Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge framing charge against the petitioners is set aside. They are discharge from the offence u/s 306 IPC.