Kheta Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

By way of this revision, the petitioners herein have approached this Court for challenging the order dated 30.01.2016 passed by learned Sessions

Judge, Jodhpur Metro in Sessions Case No.101/2015 whereby, charge was framed against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 306

IPC.

Facts in brief are that the respondent complainant Mohit son of Hiraram lodged a written report at the Police Station Jhanwar on 30.03.2015 alleging

inter alia that his father Hiraram had gone out on the previous day and did not return home. On this, a search was conducted and at around 4 O

‘Clock’, his father’s deadbody was found hanging in a barn located in his uncle Sukhram’s plot. It was further alleged in the report that

for the past few years, his father and uncles were at loggerheads over an issue of exchange of agricultural fields and reports were lodged at the police

Station Dhawa as well as Jhanwar in relation thereto. However, no concrete action was taken on the reports. The police tried to mediate between the

parties but Sukhram and Khetaram did not relent from their offensive tactics and kept on directly or indirectly insulting and intimidating Hiraram who

was maligned in the society as well as in presence of his sisters, and finally being extremely frustrated and left with no hope, he committed suicide. On

the basis of this report, an FIR No.31/2015 was lodged at the Police Station Jhanwar for the offence under Section 306 IPC and investigation was

commenced. During the course of investigation, a suicide note allegedly written by the deceased was recovered. The deadbody was subjected to

postmortem and the cause of death was opined to be hanging. Statement of Smt. Parmeshwari wife of the deceased Hiraram was recorded who

alleged that her husband and his brothers Laduram, Ramlal, Sukhdev and Khetaram were not on good terms with each other. In the year 2007, they

executed a mutual settlement for partition of their agricultural lands and were cultivating their own shares. A formal document was drawn up and

demarcation was also got done through the Patwari and fences were also erected for identifying the respective shares of the parties. However,

despite the mutual partition, Sukhdev and Khetaram continued to quarrel with her husband Hiraram and did not let him live in peace. They were

continuously pressurising Hiraram to exchange the fields. Because of the intimidating behaviour of the accused party, Hiraram’s family shifted to

Jodhpur on the advise of Parmeshwari’s father. Hiraram used to work as a construction worker to feed the family. During rainy season, he used

to go to the village for cultivating his lands but the accused did not allow him to do so peacefully. They would not permit Hiraram to bring a tractor into

the field. The stones lying at their dhani were stolen by Sukhdev. About three years ago, her husband was assaulted and disrobed by the female family

members of Sukhdev and Khetaram while performing the farming operations. Whenever he tried to meet people in the village, he was abused and

insulted. Foul words and insinuations were hurled at him. Because of the threats given by the accused, her husband was forced to use an indirect and

circuitous route for reaching his fields. The accused prepared fraudulent documents by pressuring Hiraram and got the agricultural land partitioned in

an ulterior manner. Gordhanlal Patwari also collaborated with the accused in their evil design. Her husband took preventive measures on coming to

know of this fraudulent intent of the accused and thus they could not succeed. On 28.03.2015, Hiraram’s nieces (sister’s daughters) were to

be married and all the brothers were invited to participate in the Maayra Ceremony. However, Khetaram and Sukhdev misguided her nanad (mother

of the brides) not to invite Hiraram in the ceremony and pressurised her that in case Hiraram was invited, they would not participate in the ceremony.

Her husband was not allowed to meet his sister and participate in the Maayra Ceremony. Because of the oppressive and offensive tactics of the

accused party, Hiraram became totally dejected and was left with no option but to end his life. On 30.03.2015 while she had gone to her father’s

house, she received information of her husband having committed suicide inside Sukhdev’s dhani. Similar statements were given by Chhogaram,

Bhabhutaram, Sharda, etc. However, Smt. Shanti, sister of the deceased and the present petitioners, upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,

categorically stated that all her brothers had partitioned their lands with their own free will and consent. Her daughters were to be married on

28.03.2015. She went to her maternal home four days before the wedding and invited all the brothers to come and participate in the Maayra and

wedding Ceremonies. Sukhdev, Khetaram, Ramlal’s son Prithviraj and Hiraram’s wife Parmeshwari came to attend the wedding and

performed the Maayra Ceremony. On 28.03.2015, Parmeshwari left her house and went to Jodhpur. On 29.03.2015, she came to know that Hiraram

had committed suicide by hanging himself in an abandoned barn in Sukhdev’s field. On 30.03.2015, she also went to Hiraram’s home to offer

condolences. After all social and customary rites and ceremonies had been performed, she returned to her house. Her brother Sukhdev worked atÂ

Jodhpur and seldom came to village. Hiraram, Sukhram and Khetaram had a long standing dispute over their agricultural lands. Another brother,

Laduram sold his share of land to Shukhram’s wife Teejo. As a consequence, Hiraram became annoyed and demanded that Laduram should also

give him a part of the land but Laduram refused. Laduram and Prithviraj gave similar statements as Smt. Shanti. A written note of Hira Ram

portrayed to be a suicide note was also recovered and finally, the investigating officer, upon concluding investigation, proceeded to file a charge-sheet

against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The accused claimed discharge. However, the learned Trial Judge, proceeded to

frame charge against both the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC by order dated 30.01.2016 and hence this revision.

Shri R.S. Gill, learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that there is no evidence worth the name on record of the case to even

prima-facie satisfy the Court that the accused petitioners instigated or abetted Hiraram for committing suicide. He urged that the so-called suicide note

on which, the prosecution and the trial court emphasised, was written way back in the year 2007 whereas the incident is of the year 2015 and not even

a remote connection exists between the story narrated in the note and in the act of suicide. The so-called land dispute was a creation of the deceased

himself and the accused petitioners had no part to play therein. The lands had been partitioned officially way back in the year 2007. Despite that and

even though the partition was mutual, Hiraram was persistently pressing the petitioners to exchange the lands. He urged that even if the deceased was

carrying any misgivings about the partition of land and wanted to alter the settlement, he should have resorted to the appropriate legal remedy for

redressal thereof. There was no occasion for him to end his life merely because his demand to exchange the agricultural lands by unsettling the mutual

partition was not sated. Without prejudice to the submission that there is no material worth the name on the record of the case to show that the

accused persons insulted or humiliated Hiraram in the society, Shri Gill urged that even if the said allegation is accepted as true for a moment then

also, no inference can be drawn merely therefrom so as to justify the order framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306

IPC. He further urged that the allegation as set out in the statement of Smt. Parmeshwari wife of the deceased that the petitioners did not allow the

deceased to participate in the Maayra Ceremony of Shanti Devi’s daughters stands totally falsified by the categoric statement of Smt. Shanti who

clearly ruled out any such happening. He thus implored the Court to accept the revision and set aside the order under challenge criticizing the same to

be totally illegal and unsupported by evidence.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced by Shri Gill and urged that the petitioners harassed and humiliated Hiraram to such an extent that he was left with no option but to end his

own life. He was not allowed to cultivate his fields. He was maligned and insulted in the society. The accused tried to usurp the land belonging to

Hiralal who was instigated and abetted to end his life by the recalcitrant/ offensive behaviour of the accused. They urged that there is ample material

so as to justify the order framing charge against the petitioners and hence the revision should be dismissed.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material

available on record.

Ex-facie, I am of the opinion that the evidence available on record suggests prevalence of a long standing land dispute and strifes arising therefrom

between the brothers i.e. the petitioners herein and the deceased Hiraram. However, the moot question is as to whether the so-called stubborn

conduct of the accused allegedly emanating from these disputes and strifes and the highest case as set up by the prosecution, can be considered

providing a sufficient foundation for laying a charge under Section 306 IPC against the accused on account of the suicide committed by Hiraram. The

suicide note and the statements of Mohit and Parmeshwari on which, much emphasis was placed by the prosecution and learned trial court are

primarily indicative of the dissidence and strifes between the parties owing to the land dispute prevailing since last 10 years. Even as per the admitted

case set up in the statement of Smt. Parmeshwari, the matter appears to have been officially settled in the year 2007 with a formal partition deed

being executed before the revenue authorities. Fencing/demarcation was put up on the respective shares of the parties. The note written by the

deceased which the prosecution has projected as a suicide note refers to the fact that the partition was fraudulent and was got executed by

pressurising Shri Hira Ram. If at all, there was an iota of truth in the aspersion made by the deceased in the note that the partition was got executed

by pressurising him then he should have approached the court/ competent authority rather than raveling in his own misery.

The note was written way back in the year 2007 whereas Hiraram ended his life in the year 2015. No documentary evidence whatsoever was

collected by the I.O. so as to infer about existence of any land dispute between the parties after the partition was carried out. The last incident which

could remotely connect the petitioners with the suicide of Hiraram was the alleged hurdle created against the his participation in the Maayra ceremony

and marriage of Smt. Shanti’s daughters. However, the statement of Shanti Devi recorded by the I.O. during investigation totally falsifies the

conjectural prosecution story on this aspect. Shanti Devi categorically stated that she invited all her brothers in the wedding and for performing the

Maayra Ceremony. She did not utter even a whisper that the petitioners were not happy with the invitation extended to Hiraram or showed their

displeasure on this issue or expressed their reluctance to participate in the ceremony alongside Hiraram. The deceased Hiraram himself did not attend

the marriage and the Maayra Ceremony but his wife Parmeshwari happily participated therein. This clearly proves that this story set out in

Parmeshwari’s statement is also without foundation.

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the firm opinion that there does not exist even an iota of satisfactory, reliable and admissible

evidence on the record of the case for putting up the petitioners to face trial for the offence under Section 306 IPC and to justify the order dated

30.01.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro framing charge against the petitioners for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The

charge framed against the petitioners is groundless and impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

As a consequence, the instant revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order 30.01.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Jodhpur Metro in Sessions Case No.101/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. The accused petitioners are discharged from the offence under Section

306 IPC. Stay application is disposed of.