CRL.A./214/2002 of JAGPAL SINGH & ANR. Vs STATE

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on : July 28[th], 2017

+Crl. A. No.214/2002JAGPAL SINGH & ANR.

..... AppellantsThrough:Mr.R.N. Mittal, Senior Advocate withMr.Amitej Kumar Nagar, Ms.ArushiTangri, Ms.Vasudha Bajaj, Mr.R.P.Singh, Advs.

versus

STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI)..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Panna Lal Sharma, AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for the State

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI

JUDGMENT

P.S.TEJI, J.

1.The present appeal has been filed by the appellants-JagpalSingh and Rajinder Kumar @ Titu being aggrieved by the judgment ofconviction dated 21.02.2002 passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Delhi convicting the appellants for the offencepunishableunderSection342/305/34ofIndianPenalCode(hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.) and order on sentence dated25.02.2002, whereby the appellants have been sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for period of six months for the offenceunder Section 342/34 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor seven years with fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of

fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for theoffence punishable under Section 305/34 IPC.

2.The facts of the present case are that deceased Neelam was agedabout 11½ years who was studying in class VI and used to take tuitionfrom the wife of other son of accused Jagpal Singh. On 25.03.2000,deceased Neelam went to take tuition to the house of accused personsand after coming from there, she set herself on fire. She was admittedin Safdarjung Hospital with 100% burn injuries. The police reachedthe hospital and recorded statement of Neelam. As per the statementmade by Neelam, on 25.03.2000 when she had come to her house aftertuition, accused Jagpal came to her house and had said that she hadstolen Rs.200/-.On checking the school bag of Neelam sum ofRs.200/- were found.Accused Jagpal scolded Neelam, whereasaccused Rajinder said to her that it was bad thing that she had stolenthe money. Thereafter, Neelam closed the door of her house and setherself on fire by pouring kerosene oil on herself.

3.Thereafter, Neelam died of her injuries on 26.03.2000.Postmortem on the dead body of deceased was conducted in which thedoctor opined the cause of death as shock due to ante mortem 100%burn injuries. Thereafter, mother of the deceased made complaint tothe police and then only the FIR of the instant case was registered.Both theaccused persons were arrested.Oncompletion ofinvestigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.

4.The trial court framed the charge under Section 342/34 and305/34 IPC against both the accused to which they pleaded not guiltyand claimed trial.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14witnesses, namely, PW1 Sunita, PW2 Suresh Kumar, PW3 Ram Pal,PW4 Ranjeet, PW5 Yogesh, PW6 Ashutosh @ Dablu, PW7 Dr.A.K.Sharma, PW8 HC Mahavir Singh, PW9 Ct.Gajinder Singh, PW10 SIAnil Kumar, PW11 HC Tara Chand, PW12 Babu Lal, PW13Dr.Sanjay Saraf and PW14 Insp. Puran Singh.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of theaccused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in whichthey claimed innocence. In support of their defence, accused personshad examined DW1 Ram Kishan and DW2 Ram Sewak.

7.After considering the facts, evidence led on behalf of both thesides and the material on record, the learned Additional SessionsJudge held the appellants guilty for an offence punishable underSection 342/305/34 of IPC vide judgment and sentenced the appellantsvide order on sentence, as indicated above.

8.Argument advanced by the counsel for the appellants is that inthe dying declaration Ex.PW11/A, the deceased did not blameanybody but the same has been discarded by the trial court. There wasdelay of more than 18 days in lodging the FIR and no explanation hadcome on record.It was argued that the deceased committed thesuicide out of fear of her mother when she was caught red handed for

Crl. A. No.214/2002

stealing the money.It was submitted that no case for abetting thesuicide is made out against the appellants inasmuch as accusing aperson of stealing cannot come within the purview of abetting ofsuicide.There are material contradictions in the testimony ofwitnesses which makes the case of prosecution doubtful. In support ofhis contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon thefollowing judgments: Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2001AIR SC 3837; Mool Chand & Anr. Vs. State, 2017 (2) AD(Delhi)709; Gangukla Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 (1)SCC 750; S.S. Cheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, 2010 (9) SCR 1111;Chitresh Kumar Cheena vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2010 AIR SC 1446and M. Mohan vs. State, 2011 AIR SC 1238.

9.Arguments advanced by both the sides were heard and theevidence as well as material placed on record has been gone into.

10.At the very outset it is explicitly clear from the dyingdeclaration of the deceased that she did not blame anyone for hercommitting the said act of setting herself ablaze. After returning fromher tuition when the accused persons reached her home to question herwith respect to their lost money, and upon checking the same wasfound in her bag, the deceased was scolded by her mother and theaccused persons. The accused told her that it was bad thing that shehad stolen money subsequent to which she shut herself inside herhouse and set herself on fire after pouring kerosene oil on herself andnobody else had burnt her.

11.PW1 is Sunita, the mother of the deceased. She has stated inher testimony that on 25[th]March, 2000 her daughter, the deceased hadgone to take tuitions at the house of the accused persons from Ritu.She returned home at around 6 PM and immediately after accusedJagpal came to her house and asked her to check the bag of thedeceased. This witness asked the accused to check the same himself.The accused took the deceased to his house where the co-accused wasalso present along with Ritu and this witness followed all of them.Both the accused beat up her daughter and accused her of stealingRs.200/- and thereafter accused took the deceased inside room andquestioned her there. The deceased was crying and shouting but thiswitness was stopped from going inside the room by the accused Jagpaland Ritu. Thereafter, the deceased was let go by the accused persons.

12.From the facts and circumstances of the case and testimony ofthe mother of the deceased, it is clear that the deceased was questionedby the accused persons with respect to their money and Rs.200/- wasfound in the deceased’s bag by the accused persons. The accusedpersons and also the mother of the deceased thereafter, scolded thedeceased for her act of stealing money from the accused persons.Thereafter, she locked herself in her house and set herself ablaze.

13.In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618,the Supreme Court while considering the charge framed and theconviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of thedying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate, in which shehad stated that previously there had been quarrel between the

Crl. A. No.214/2002Page 5 of 8

deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had aquarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever shewanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herselfand had set fire. Acquitting the accused the Hon’ble Apex Court said:The word “urge forwards” means to advise or try hard topersuade somebody to do something, to make person to movemore quickly in the particular direction, especially by pushing orforcing such person. Therefore, person instigating another hasto “goad” or “urge forward” the latter with the intention toprovoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act with latter. Inorder to prove abetment, it must be shown that the accused kepton urging or annoying the deceased by words, taunts until thedeceased reacted. casual remark or something said in routine orusual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood as“abetment”.

14.Further, in Gangula Mohan Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh(2010) 1 SCC 750 it was held that abetment involves mental processof instigating person or intentionally aiding person in doing of athing and without positive act on the part of the accused to instigateor aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained underSection 306 IPC. word uttered in fit of anger or emotionwithoutintending the consequences to actually follow, thus, cannot be saidto be instigation.

15.Furthermore, in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal &Another. (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon’ble Apex Court has cautioned that

Crl. A. No.214/2002Page 6 of 8

Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts andcircumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial forthe purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim hadin fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide.If it appearsto the Court that victim committing suicide was hypersensitiveto ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quitecommon to the society to which the victim belonged and suchpetulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce asimilarly circumstanced individual in given society to commitsuicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basinga finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicideshould be found guilty.

16.Based on the above discussion and relevance of the case lawsdiscussed along with placing reliance on the dying declaration of thevictim it cannot be said that the accused persons, in any way,instigated or goaded the deceased to commit suicide. The accusedpersons had no doubt reprimanded the deceased for her act of stealingmoney from their house but the same cannot be said to have been withany intention, knowledge or desire to instigate her to commit suicide.Further, the deceased herself has explicitly mentioned in her dyingdeclaration that nobody had in fact pressurized her into committingsuicide and the said act was of her own doing. It is also matter offact that in her earlier statement made to the police, the complainant(mother of the deceased) had herself stated that when it was found thata sum of stolen money i.e. Rs.200/- were recovered from the bag ofher deceased daughter, she was reprimanded by her also apart fromothers.Thus, the testimony made by the complaint during herexamination in the Court is in no way can be said to be convincing toheld the appellants guilty of commission of abetment of suicide.

17.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the consideredopinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of theappellants with respect to abetment of suicide by the deceased.Therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 342/305/34IPC deserves to be set aside.

18.As observed above, the judgment of conviction and order onsentence passed by the Trial Court are set aside. The appellants are onbail. Their bail bond and surety bonds stand discharged.

19.A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court for information.

20.With aforesaid directions, the present appeal is disposed of.

JULY 28, 2017dd

(P.S.TEJI)JUDGE

Crl. A. No.214/2002