Rajbala vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta, J.—1. The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner Smt. Rajbala being aggrieved of the order dated 10.8.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 13/2015 framing charge against her for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

Facts in brief are that the petitioner was married to the deceased Pawan Prakash in the year 2009. A female child was born from the wedlock. Pawan''s family owned significant chunks of agricultural land and other property. The prosecution has set up a case that after the marriage, the petitioner, her parents and brother started instigating and pressurizing Pawan to claim separation from his brothers and to get the family property partitioned. Pawan was enrolled as an Advocate and was practicing law. When Smt. Kalawati the mother of Pawan came to know of this evil design of the accused, she advised the petitioner not to indulge in the attempts to split the family and that she should continue to live as a part and parcel of the joint family. It is further alleged that the accused pressurized and traumatized Pawan to such extent that he stopped going to the courts. The petitioner used to frequently go away to her father''s house at Chaharwala. Whenever Pawan went to bring her back, he was abused and pressurized that he should transfer his property to the name of Rajbala and was continuously tortured on this account. Smt. Kalawati got convened a Panchayat at the house of the accused at Chaharwala but they persisted with their demand and insisted that Rajbala would be sent to live with Pawan at Chanan only if the land belonging to Pawan was transferred to her name. The petitioner became pregnant and thereafter, went to her father''s house and refused to return to live with Pawan and persisted with the demand that she would come back only after he transferred his property to her name. After great efforts, she was somehow brought to the matrimonial home but continued to quarrel with Pawan. On 7.3.2011 she again quarreled with Pawan and leaving him in a despondent state, went away with her brother saying that she was returning to her father''s house. Pawan was deeply hurt by this attitude of his wife and went away saying that he was going to Bhadra Bus Stand but did not return till late in the night. A search was started on 8.3.2011. Belt, Shoes, Socks and other personal belongings of Pawan were seen lying near a water tank in the agricultural field of the complainant. It was suspected that Pawan had drowned himself. The dead body was taken out from the tank and Police was informed. The petitioner was also informed. The dead body was subjected to post mortem, which resulted into a finding that the cause of death of Pawan was drowning. On 5.4.2011 when the search of Pawan''s room was undertaken, a suicide note written by him was found wherein it was scribed:--

The complainant and her husband went to the Police Station for reporting the matter but the Police Officers refused to accept the report, whereupon a complaint was filed in the court of the learned ACJM, Bhadra for the offences under Sections 306 and 109 IPC against the petitioner Smt. Rajbala, her parents and her brother Vijay Singh. The complaint was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No. 238/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 109 IPC and investigation commenced. During investigation, the Police got the suicide note compared through the handwriting expert from where a report was received to the effect that the suicide note had been scribed by Pawan. Extensive investigation was conducted and the Investigating Officer finally concluded that the petitioner persistently pressurized the deceased for transferring his property to her name and on failure to do so, she used to leave the deceased and went away to her matrimonial home frequently She also threatened the deceased with dire consequences if the property was not transferred to her name. On 7.3.2011 the petitioner quarreled with the deceased Pawan Kumar and persisted with her demand to transfer the land to her name and when he did not agree to the said suggestion, she left the matrimonial home and went away to her father''s house after threatening him. The deceased thereupon became highly perturbed and ended his life by drowning in the water tank. Documents of the proceedings instituted by the petitioner in her endeavour to get the property of Pawan Kumar transferred to her name soon after his death and her application for getting a succession certificate were also collected by the Investigating Officer. After completing investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The trial Judge, by order dated 10.8.2015 proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner for the said offence. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this revision.

Shri R.S. Choudhary learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no material whatsoever on the record of the case to show that the deceased was ever instigated by the petitioner to commit suicide. The dead body of Pawan was recovered on 8.3.2011. Pawan was a habitual drinker and was mentally disturbed. He underwent therapy for de-addiction because he was perturbed by his liquor addiction. However, the therapy proved unsuccessful. He committed suicide owing to his unsound mental state. The family members of the deceased did not file any FIR soon after the incident. Initially, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were undertaken, wherein Pawan Kumar''s father gave a statement that Pawan Kumar had committed suicide because of his disturbed mental state.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon following judgments rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court:--

"(1) , 2012 CrLR (SC) 833 Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr.

(2) 2000 CrLR (SC) 407 State of M.P. v. SB Johari & Ors.

(3) , 2011(Suppl.) CrLR (SC) 260 Tej Bir & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.

(4) , 2009(2) CrLR (Raj.) 1136 Shahjad Ali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

(5) , 2009(2) CrLR (Raj.) 1625 Dharmendra Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

(6) 2008(1) CrLR (Raj.) 1 Manjeet Singh & 5 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

(7) 2007(2) CrLR (Raj.) 956 Radhey Shyam v. State of Rajasthan"

In support of his arguments and contended that even if the allegations levelled by the deceased in his suicide are accepted to be true on the face of the record, then also, ex-facie, none of the ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC are disclosed so as to justify the order framing charge against the petitioner. He thus urged that the revision is fit to be accepted.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Moti Singh learned counsel representing the respondent No. 2 complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel or the petitioner. They submitted that the deceased was continuously pressurized and hounded by the petitioner and her parents to transfer his property in the petitioner''s name. When the deceased resisted the said demand, he was emotionally blackmailed and mentally tortured. The petitioner used to frequently leave the matrimonial home after quarreling with the deceased so that he would yield to her demands. He was pressurized and blackmailed to such a degree that he had no option left but to end his life. The deceased who was mentally traumatized by the petitioner''s greed for his property expressed his anguish in the suicide note, which was recovered on 5.4.2011. Immediately thereafter, the FIR was got registered through a complaint. The investigating agency got the suicide note compared through the handwriting expert and it has been found that the scribe of the suicide note was none other than of the deceased Pawan. Shri Moti Singh, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments and urged that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order of framing charge against the petitioner passed by the learned trial Court.

"(1) , 2015 AIR SCW 4814 State of Kerala & Ors. v. Unnikrishnan Nair & Ors.

(2) 2012 CrLR (Raj.) 455 Mam Raj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

(3) , 2010 (Suppl.) CrLR (SC) 261 Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

(4) , (2002)5 SCC 371 Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P.

(5) , 1999 CrLR (SC) 141 Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. & Anr."

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 complainant and have gone through the material available on record.

The basic thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel or the petitioner was that the deceased was mentally perturbed owing to the habit of excessive drinking. He took rehabilitative therapy for getting rid of this addiction The therapy failed whereafter, Pawan Kumar lost all hope and ended his life. In support of this contention, he relied upon the application submitted by the deceased for participating in a liquor de-addiction camp. On going through the said application, it is evident that the deceased has mentioned in the application that he was in the habit of consuming one quarter of liquor for the last six months. In the opinion of this Court, the deceased cannot be branded as an addict if he was consuming a quarter of liquor every day for just six months. The deceased was a law graduate and was also preparing for competitive exams. The possibility of Pawan Kumar having taken to consumption of liquor in order to get over the mental pain and trauma inflicted upon him by the petitioner''s owing to her greed for property cannot be ruled out. The fact regarding the deceased having agricultural land is undisputed from the material available on record. The deceased clearly mentioned in his suicide note that his in laws and his wife were out and out to acquire his ancestral land and that they should not be allowed to succeed in their evil design. Soon after the death of Pawan, the petitioner moved the concerned Court for getting a succession certificate and also for getting the share of the petitioner''s land transferred to her name, which fact is fortified from the documents available on record and was not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this background, the allegation leveled by the prosecution that the deceased was mentally tortured and harassed by the petitioner and her family members in order to satisfy their greed and for getting Pawan Kumar''s property transferred to the name of the petitioner is thoroughly corroborated from the material available on record. The judgments, which have been relied upon by Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely based on different set of facts and are thus distinguishable. In the case of State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair, the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered the factual scenario wherein, the deceased committed suicide leaving behind a suicide note to the effect that the accused were responsible for his situation. However, what was the exact nature of culpability of the accused was not mentioned in the suicide note and thus, the said case is entirely distinguishable on facts. In the case of Mam Raj, the prosecution alleged that a false allegation of theft was levelled against the deceased, who committed suicide soon thereafter. Again the said set of facts is entirely distinguishable from the case at hand. In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy, the Hon''ble Supreme Court was considering an appeal against conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and held that there was no evidence and material available on record to prove that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Proof would obviously be required when the accused undergoes trial. Therefore again, the said judgment is entirely different and distinguishable from the present case. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh, the deceased committed suicide pursuant to harsh words uttered by the accused in a quarrel or on a spur of moment. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the words uttered in a quarrel or on a spur of moment, cannot be taken to be uttered with mens-rea and quashed the charges framed against the accused. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the facts of the case at hand are entirely distinguishable from the facts considered by the Courts in the judgments relied upon by the petitioner''s counsel. In the case of Amit Kapoor relied upon by Shri Moti Singh, the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered almost an identical set of facts and reversed the order passed by the High Court quashing the charge framing order against the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The facts of the above case are very near to the facts of the case at hand.

The Court after examining the record is thoroughly satisfied that there is ample material available on record of the case to conclude that the petitioner continuously hounded, harassed and pressurized the deceased with the oblique motive of getting his properties transferred to her name. When the deceased hesitated in complying with the said demand, the petitioner frequently disrupted the matrimony and used to go off to her father''s house for blackmailing the deceased into submission. Thus, there was ample reason for the deceased to feel immense pressure and mental trauma owing to petitioner''s vile conduct and as a direct consequence thereof, he ended his life. Hence, the trial Court was perfectly justified in concluding that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are made out and was perfectly justified in framing charge against the petitioner for the said offence.

The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference by this Court in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. However, it is made clear that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be treated to be prejudicial to the case of either of the parties at the trial.

As a consequence of the above discussion, the revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.