Roshan Lal vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code","Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of

Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation

they were returning for their homes, many persons gathered there and started abusing them. They also asked her and the deceased whether said boy",

Khalendra was their saiyan. This witness has further deposed that thereafter both of them went to the house of the deceased. The deceased poured,

oil on her and set herself on fire in the bathroom of her house in presence of this witness. She has further stated that she did not know who were the,

persons who abused them. She has categorically stated that the Appellants were not the persons who abused them. This witness has been declared,

hostile.,

Khalendra (PW6) has deposed that two girls of his neighbour had come to his house for seeking English tuition. Later on, he came to know that",

one of those two girls died due to burn injuries. This witness has further deposed that at the time when the said two girls had come to his house, many",

boys including the Appellants, who were present there, told him that he used to call girls and do wrong with them. Thereafter, those two girls returned.",

In paragraph 9, this witness has stated that first 5-6 boys had come, but, thereafter, 15-20 persons gathered there and the allegations were levelled by",

the said first 5-6 boys. He has not categorically stated that the Appellants were the boys who were indulged in those 5-6 boys.,

Patwari Kamlesh (PW7) is the witness who prepared spot-map (Ex.P5). Head Constable Prakash Das (PW8) recorded morgue intimation on,

zero, conducted inquest (Ex.P3) and recorded numbered morgue (Ex.P10) on the basis of morgue recorded on zero. Inspector P.S. Netam (PW10) is",

the Investigating Officer. He recorded First Information Report (Ex.P11) on the basis of morgue inquiry. He prepared spot-map (Ex.P6) and recorded,

statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Dr. Aniruddh Mene (PW12) is the witness who first examined the,

deceased at Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai on 28.11.2013. Head Constable Bhikham Sahu (PW13) seized a container from which smell of kerosene was",

coming out vide Ex.P21.,

Before discussing the evidence on record, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code,",

which runs as under:,

Abetment of a thing.--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.",

Explanation 1.--A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily",

causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.",

Explanation 2.--Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and",

thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.""",

While dealing with the issue, it has been observed by the Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 327 (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra",

Pradesh) as follows:,

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 is 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 committed suicide.""",

In (2011) 3 SCC 626 (M. Mohan v. State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police), the Supreme Court, by the following",

observation, has clearly held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit",

the offence:,

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.""",

In the light of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts and the evidence of the present case are to be examined minutely.",

It is not in dispute that on the date of incident both deceased Parvati and her friend Reshma (PW3) had gone to the house of Khalendra (PW6) for,

asking him about giving them English tuition. As per the prosecution story, at that time, the Appellants and some other villagers used filthy words about",

the character of the two girls. As a result thereof, Parvati poured kerosene on her and set herself on fire at her house in presence of her friend",

Reshma (PW3). During the course of treatment, she died in the hospital. Sole eyewitness Reshma (PW3) has categorically stated that she is not",

aware about who committed the alleged act. In paragraphs 4 and 10 of her statement, she has further categorically stated that the Appellants were",

not indulged in the persons who abused them.,

Though Khalendra (PW6), in examination-in-chief, has stated that when both the girls had come to him, the Appellants and other boys had said",

him that he used to call girls and do wrong with them, this witness has not stated anything that the Appellants or the other boys said anything wrong to",

both the girls. In paragraphs 9 and 15 of his statement, this witness has also stated that both the girls had come to him. At that time, 5-6 boys had also",

come to him and and those 5-6 boys themselves had levelled allegations. Thereafter, 15-20 persons also came there. Who were those 15- 20 persons",

has not been stated by this witness. The Appellants were indulged in the aforesaid 5-6 boys who had come to him first, there is no specific statement",

given by this witness in this regard. Therefore, it appears that the Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the statement of this witness.",

Other witnesses Ram Prasad (PW2), Sarita (PW4) and Madhav (PW5), who are father, mother and brother of the deceased, respectively, are not",

eyewitnesses of the incident. In their Court statements, Ram Prasad (PW2) and Sarita (PW4) have stated that in the hospital, the deceased told them",

that the alleged wrong was done to the deceased by the Appellants themselves. Madhav (PW5) has also stated that the dying declaration (Ex.P8) of,

the deceased was recorded in his presence. At that time, the deceased had named the Appellants for the alleged act. But, Naib Tahsildar Ranjana",

Ahuja (PW14), who recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P8) of the deceased, has categorically stated that on being asked the names of the boys who",

did wrong with the deceased, she did not tell their names. The deceased told her that the boys were friends of her brother. Since as stated by Ranjana",

Ahuja (PW14) while recording the dying declaration (Ex.P8) the deceased did not tell her names of any of the boys, statements of Ram Prasad",

(PW2), Sarita (PW4) and Madhav (PW5) in this regard are not reliable. Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is clear that some boys had",

used filthy words regarding character of the deceased and her friend Reshma (PW3), but the Appellants were indulged in those boys there is no",

clinching evidence available on record. Thus, the conviction of the Appellants is not in accordance with the evidence available on record and law.",

Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the",

charges framed against them.,

Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance.,