Pinki @ Pinky Rani vs State of Punjab

Amol Rattan Singh, J.—The petitioner in this petition seeks anticipatory bail, in view of FIR No. 93, dated 14.08.2013 having been

registered against her husband and her, on the allegation that they had abetted the suicide of the brother of the complainant, i.e. of Dinesh Kumar.

Consequently, the FIR was registered in respect of offences punishable u/s 306 IPC, read with Section 34 IPC. As per the allegation, the

deceased, Dinesh Kumar, had borrowed Rs. 10 lacs from the husband of the petitioner, i.e. Roshan Lal @ Paala and was paying monthly interest

@ 10% per month and had returned about Rs. 2 lacs though he was not in a position to pay the principal amount. The deceased was stated to be

running an electronic shop in Ludhiana.

The allegation in the FIR, further is, that on account of the constant threats meted out by the petitioner and her husband, to the deceased,

including threats to his life, fed up with such threats, he hanged himself on the morning of 14.08.2013, from the ceiling fan of his shop.

When the petition had come up for hearing initially, on 17.09.2013, Mr. R.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, had submitted that, as a

matter of fact, it was the deceased who was actually giving loans to various people and, as such, if at all he was under any kind of pressure, it was

probably due to the fact that the loans given by him were not being returned, thereby putting him into financial hardships.

The suicide notice was also stated to be in different handwritings.

Mr. Bajaj had further argued that the petitioner is only a housewife and had nothing to do with the business dealings of her husband and that

such she has been simply falsely roped in by the complainant, even presuming the fact that, though it was not admitted to be so, some business

dealings between the petitioners'' husband and the deceased.

Consequently, when notice was issued, interim bail anticipatory had been ordered in favour of the petitioner, in the event that she was sought to

be arrested, subject to her abiding by all the conditions stipulated in Section 438(2) Cr. P.C.

Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 25.09.2013, learned State counsel had submitted that the petitioner had joined investigation;

however Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, had put in appearance on behalf of the complainant and submitted that he would like to place on record

documents to show that the petitioner was actually involved in the incident which led to the deceased committing suicide, including statements of

certain eye witnesses to the incident of a day earlier, that led to him eventually committing suicide.

Mr. Mehta had also contended that the statements of the eyewitnesses were not being recorded by the police, on account of the fact that the

husband of the petitioner was an influential person.

When the matter came up for hearing on 10.10.2013, Mr. P.S. Hundal, learned Senior Advocate, had put in appearance for the petitioner and

after reiterating what was earlier submitted by Mr. Bajaj on the date when notice was issued, further submitted that, as pleaded in the petition, the

suicide note was obviously fabricated, inasmuch as, one of the pages thereof was different to the other pages which were on the letter pad of the

firm of the deceased, but the second page thereof was on the letter pad of Shri Shrikeshwar Mahadev Mandir and Dharmshala and was bearing

the date of 12.08.2013.

Mr. Hundal further relied upon three judgments to submit that, simply because the deceased owed money to the persons who were accused of

abetting such suicide, that was no reason enough to accuse them of such abetment and as such, the allegations are misconceived.

This submission was in addition to the fact that, as submitted by Mr. Bajaj earlier, it was the deceased who was indulging in money lending and

not the husband of the petitioner or the petitioner herself.

The contention, therefore, is that since there was no money which was lent by the petitioner or her husband, there was no question of it having

been paid back.

The judgments relied upon by Mr. Hundal are of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,

of Bombay High Court in Santosh Nathumal Goenka and Jitendra @ Jitu Harishchandra Virmani Vs. State of Maharashtra, and of Andhra

Pradesh High Court in Pallem Deniel Victor @ Victor Hanter and others Vs. State of A.P., 1997(1) Crimes 499.

In Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (Supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court was seized of a matter in which the husband of the sister of the

accused, who is stated to have threatened the deceased, that in case he did not mend his behavior towards his sister, he (accused) would be

compelled to lodge a complaint invoking Section 498A of the IPC. It was also alleged that when the deceased went to the house of the accused to

take his wife back with him, he was threatened and abused by using filthy words, leading to him committing suicide by hanging, on the next day. In

that case also, the deceased had left a suicide note.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court, after taking into account the contents of the suicide notice which, other than containing some endearments to his

wife, also gave the name of the accused, time and again stating that he is responsible for his death.

Looking at the tenor and contents of the note, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that a plain reading thereof showed that the deceased was in great

distress and depression and one plausible reason thereof could be that he was without any work and avocation and, at the same time, was indulged

in drinking as revealed by the statement of his wife. Therefore, even if the prosecution story was to be believed, the quarrel between the deceased

and the accused had taken place a day earlier, therefore his suicide on the next day could not be stated to be the direct result of the quarrel that

had taken place. Hence, holding that the ingredients of abetment, as contained in Section 107 IPC, were absent and, in those circumstances, the

charge-sheet framed against the accused, by the trial Court, for an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, was quashed.

The other two judgments, i.e. one of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and another Single Bench of the Bombay High

Court, are to the effect that mere non-payment of debt by the deceased and allegations of harassment by the accused on account of the same,

including threats to life, would not make the accused culpable of an offence u/s 306 IPC.

In other judgments also, though not referred to presently, it has been held that suicide by a person on account of debt mounted on his head and his

being harassed to repay such debt, would not make the accused guilty of the crime, as the temperament of a person who is subjected to such

harassment, would be the biggest factor in his committing suicide.

Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has placed on record, in Court, the documents that he had sought to so

place, which are some photographs showing posters of the husband of the petitioner to be a candidate for some election, a receipt stated to have

been issued by the petitioner herself on behalf of her husbands'' firm, newspaper cuttings to the effect that the deceased had committed suicide on

account of the petitioner and her husband having threatened him and despite sometime having been elapsed, the accused not having been arrested

by the police.

Other documents are representations to the various police authorities, which are signed by about 40 people, with a prayer therein that action be

taken against the husband of the petitioner, on account of the fact that he was harassing them time and again.

Three affidavits have also been annexed with the application by learned counsel for the complainant, one of which is by one Bishambar Singh, to

the effect that the petitioner is helping her husband in the business of finance; the two other affidavits are of two ladies, i.e. Krishna Devi and Rajni,

to the effect that on 12.08.2013, the petitioner and her husband had come to the shop of the deceased, pulled him out and had abused him and

beaten him up, as a result of which he committed suicide. One of the ladies (Krishna Devi), is stated to be the landlady of the shop in which the

deceased was running his business and who claims that she was present in the shop when the incident took place.

The affidavit of the other lady, Rajni, is to the effect that she, along with her mother, was present in the shop to make a purchase when the

petitioner and her husband came up and beat up the deceased. This affidavit further goes on to say that the petitioner herself beat up the deceased

with ""chappals"" and when the deponent and her mother tried to rescue her, they too were abused.

In view of the above mentioned circumstances, even though the deceased committed suicide only more than 24 hours thereafter, however, in

view of the fact that he is alleged to have been beaten up in public view, with footwear also, and in view of the fact that the petitioner is stated to be

not just a housewife and is aiding and helping her husband in the running of his business, which prima facie at least, belies the statements of the

petitioner in her pleadings that she is only a housewife, the suicide, at least, prima facie, at this stage, seems to be the result of the extreme

humiliation heaped upon the deceased.

In the present case, it is not just an allegation of suicide having been committed on account of harassment due to money owed by the

deceased, but an allegation of physical beatings in full public view, allegedly with ''chappals'', that led him to taking the extreme step.

Of course, the truth or falsehood of the affidavits would be a matter of investigation or evidence to be led.

As a result, I am not inclined to continue the concession of anticipatory bail already granted to the petitioner vide the earlier order dated

17.09.2013. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and the interim order is vacated.

However, it is made clear that nothing said hereinabove would be taken to be a finding on merits against the accused, i.e. the petitioner and her

husband, either by the investigating agency or, if at all a report comes to be filed against them u/s 173 Cr. P.C., then by the trial Court at any

subsequent stage.

The observations made hereinabove are only in relation to whether the petitioner deserves to be continued on a concession of anticipatory bail

already granted to her. Obviously, she and her co-accused would be entitled to all defences that are available to them before the investigating

agency and, if it comes to that stage, then the trial Court. These observations would also not be taken to be an indication that the investigating

agency is either bound to or not bound to, present a report against the accused u/s 173 Cr. P.C. The entire investigation would be carried out as

per the merits of the case and as investigated by the investigating officer.