Ramashanker Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh

With reference to the appellant No. 1, Ramashankar Singh, this appeal has been abated vide order dated 27.11.2009.

This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba in Sessions Trial No. 8/1994 whereby and whereunder, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, plus default stipulation.

Brief facts of the case are that deceased Ravindra Singh and appellant No.2/Sanjay Singh were admitted in the Chhattisgarh Institute of Engineering with the help of appellant No.1/ Ramashanker Singh. One day, Appellant No.-1/Ramashanker Singh gave Rs. 500/- to deceased Ravindra Singh to hand over the same to Appellant No.-2/Sanjay Singh. As the same was not fully delivered, Respondent No.2/Sanjay Singh could not deposit the examination fee, as a result of which, he did not appear in the examination. Based on that a quarrel arose between the deceased and Sanjay Singh. As his one year of engineering was spoiled, he claimed of Rs. 8,000/- from the deceased. Thereafter, the appellants started harassing the deceased and committed mar-peet in the name of claimed money, due to which, after being harassed, deceased Ravindra Singh consumed poisonous substance. He was admitted to the hospital but during the treatment, he died. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and charge was framed under Section 306 of the IPC against the appellants.

So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges leveled against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case and also examined 5 witnesses in their defence.

After examination of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 306 and sentenced them as mentioned above in para 1 of this order. Hence, the present appeal filed by the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Court below erroneously held the appellant guilty under Section 306 of the IPC as there is no legal material available on record to show instigation on behalf of the appellant within a month of the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that it would be improper to convict the appellant in the alleged commission of offence merely on the basis of suspicion and also the prosecution has failed to establish the ingredients of the abetment of suicide. There is no cogent evidence against the appellant which can prove cruelty or ill-treatment for last about one month. The dispute arose due to the non-delivering of the alleged amount to the Appellant No. 2/Sanjay Singh by the deceased and the appellant Sanjay Singh could not appear in the examination but it is not the reason of instant abetment as the same was happened much prior to the death of the deceased, therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set-aside. In support of her argument, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in 1996 CriLJ 894, Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 SCC 371, M. Mohan Vs. State reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626 and this Court's order dated 11.09.2014 passed in Criminal Revision No 136/2014.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the Court below convicting the appellants under Section 306 of the IPC, being based on the material available on record, are just and proper and do not call for any interference in this appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the impugned judgment.

As per the prosecution case deceased Ravindra Singh did not give the alleged money to Appellant No. 2/Sanjay Singh due to which he (Sanjay Singh) could not deposit the examination fee and did not appear in the examination. Appellant abused the deceased and bothered him, due to this harassment deceased committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance. Savitri Singh (PW-2) and Ramdayal Singh (PW-16) are parents of the deceased. Savitri Singh (PW-2) stated in para 8 of her deposition that appellant Sanjay Singh and one Devendra Singh came to her house with 20-30 persons and started knocking the door but she did not open the door. On being asked, appellant demanded Rs. 8,000/- from the deceased. Thereafter, some neighbours of the Savitri Singh came and drove away the appellant and his companions. Again she stated in para 9 of her deposition that on 21.08.1993 when Ravinder Singh was in Raipur, appellants called him stating that his mother is ill and on 24.08.1993, when Ravinder Singh came to house, he found me healthy and fine. In para 10 she stated that on 25.08.1993 Ravinder Singh went with his friend Sunil Kumar Ratre for repairing of his bike and when he came back he was very depressed. Again talked with Sunil Kumar Ratre, came to home and stated that the appellants would not let him live. Then he took tea, listened music and started vomiting. In para 12 she stated that:

Ramdayal Singh (PW-16), father of the deceased stated in para 28 of his statement that:-

The question in this case is as to whether, considering and accepting the entire material available on record as absolutely correct and true, a case for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is made out against the present appellant.

In this case of abetment of suicide, Sections 306, 107 and 109 of the IPC are relevant which are as under:-

"306. If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

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, the doing of that thing.

Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment-Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."

As per the definition given in Section 107 IPC abetment is constituted by-

• Instigating a person to commit an offence; or

• Engaging in a conspiracy to commit it; or

• Intentionally aiding a person to commit it.

As section 306 IPC makes abetment of commission of suicide punishable, therefore, making liable for an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, it is a duty of the prosecution to establish that such person has abetted the commission of suicide and for the purpose of determining the act of the accused it is necessary to see that his act must fall in any of the three categories as enumerated under Section 107 IPC, and therefore, it is necessary to prove that the said accused has instigated the person to commit suicide or must have engaged with one or more other person in any conspiracy for seeking that the deceased commits suicide or he must intentionally aid by any act or illegal omission, of the commission of suicide by the deceased.

B.P. Singh (PW-13) has stated in his evidence that on 19-20 August R.D. Singh and Ramashankar Singh had come to his house along with their children Ravindra Singh and Sanjay Singh respectively. In para 3 he stated the full conversation in detail held among all of them and lastly submitted that after 15 to 20 days of the discussion the incident has held. In para 5 he stated that:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Mahendra (Supra) that merely the allegation of harassment to deceased there was no other pointed evidence from which it could be inferred that there was any abetment. However, the dying declaration, per se, could not involve appellant in offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and conviction of appellant under Section 306 of IPC merely on allegation of harassment to deceased was not sustainable.

In the matter of Sanju (Supra) learned the Apex Court held in paras 9 & 10 that:

"9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under; (SCC p. 731, para 1)

"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reason and being harassed I want to die by burning"

This Court, considering the definition of "abetment" under Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased."

Again in the matter of M. Mohan (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paras 44 & 45 as under:-

"44. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. it also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."

It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that a quarrel between accused and deceased was held before 10 to 15 days and the cause of quarrel was that the deceased did not give the said money to appellant No.2/Sanjay Singh so he could not deposit his examination fee and for that reason appellant abused and harassed the deceased. But as the Hon'ble Apex Court held that under Section 107 & 306 of the IPC provides that words uttered in a quarrel on the spur of moment cannot be taken uttered as mens rea, it is in a fit of anger and emotion and as per the prosecution witnesses alleged abusing words said to have been uttered to the deceased 15 to 20 days before the incident. The deceased was a victim of his own conduct.

Taking the totality of material on record and the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death.

Appeal, as a result, is allowed and the impugned judgment of the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bond furnished by him stand discharged.