HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Revision No.654 of 2016
Order Reserved on : 4.12.2018
Order Passed on : 1.3.2019
1. Devanand Chandwani, S/o Late Arjundas Chandwani, aged about 31 years,
2. Deepak Chandwani, @ Purushottam Chandwani, S/o Late Arjundas Chandwani, aged about 40 years,
3. Smt. Mayadevi Chandwani, W/o Late Arjundas Chandwani, aged about 65 years,
4. Smt. Nandni Chandwani, W/o Deepak Chandwani, aged about 34 years,
All are R/o New Khursipar, Sindhi Mohalla, Near Sindhi Dharmshala, P.S. Khursipar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh —- Applicants
The State of Chhattisgarh by a Station House Officer, Police Station Khursipar, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh — Respondent
For Applicants : Shri S.C. Verma and Shri Harshvardhan Parganiha, Advocates
For State/Respondent : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel C.A.V. ORDER
1. The benefaction rider has been elite opposite a sequence antiquated 28.6.2016 upheld by a 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.5 of 2016, whereby charges underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code have been framed opposite a Applicants.
2. Applicant No.1 is father of defunct Padmini Chandwani.
Applicants No.2 and 4 are elder hermit and sister-in-law of Applicant No.1 and Applicant No.3 is mother-in-law of a deceased. Marriage between Applicant No.1 and a defunct was solemnised on 6.12.2013. In a inserted night of 14 th and 15th of July, 2014 during about 3:35 a.m., defunct Padmini committed self-murder by immoderate some unwholesome substance. On a basement of a chit perceived from a hospital, morgue was recorded. On 15.7.2014 during about 9:20 a.m., during inquiry, statements of witnesses were accessible by police. Allegations opposite a Applicants are that they were badgering a defunct physically and mentally due to that she committed suicide. Police purebred First Information Report and on execution of review filed a charge-sheet opposite a Applicants for an corruption punishable underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court framed charges opposite a Applicants underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code. Hence, this revision.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for a Applicants submitted that in a whole charge-sheet there is no element accessible to support a charges opposite a Applicants for a purported corruption punishable underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code and as such a Additional Sessions Judge has committed perceptible illegality in framing a charges opposite a Applicants. Even if a whole chronicle of a assign is taken as it is, no corruption is finished out opposite a Applicants. The really basement and required mixture of a supplies of Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code are blank in a whole charge-sheet. As per a assign story, a defunct committed self-murder due to additional passionate act by her husband/Applicant No.1 with her and there was an unlawful attribute of Applicant No.1 with Applicant No.4. Even if it is deliberate for a outcome of argument, usually on a basement of this no corruption underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code is finished out opposite a Applicants. There is no vicinity and sequence between a control and poise of a Applicants with that of a self-murder committed by a deceased.
4. On a other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for a State submitted that there is sufficient element accessible for supposed that a Applicants have committed a corruption and as such there is no illegality in a sequence impugned framing a charges opposite a Applicants warranting division by this Court.
5. we have listened Learned Counsel appearing for a parties and perused a element accessible with due care.
6. The doubt in a benefaction box is as to possibly deliberation and usurpation a whole element accessible as positively scold and true, a prima facie box for purported elect of corruption punishable underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code is finished out opposite a benefaction Applicants?
7. At this juncture, it is suitable to demeanour into a supplies of Sections 306 and 107 of a Indian Penal Code, that review as under:
“306. Abetment of suicide.-If any chairman commits suicide, whoever abets a elect of such suicide, shall be punished with seizure of possibly outline for a tenure that might extend to 10 years, and shall also be probable to fine.
107. Abetment of a thing.-A chairman abets a doing of a thing, who–
First.– Instigates any chairman to do that thing;
or Secondly.– Engages with one or some-more other chairman or persons in any swindling for a doing of that thing, if an act or bootleg repudiation takes place in pursuit of that conspiracy, and in sequence to a doing of that thing; or Thirdly.– Intentionally aids, by any act or bootleg omission, a doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.–A chairman who, by determined misrepresentation, or by determined dissimulation of a element fact that he is firm to disclose, willingly causes or procures, or attempts to means or procure, a thing to be done, is pronounced to satisfy a doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.–Whoever, possibly before to or during a time of a elect of an act, does anything in sequence to promote a elect of that act, and thereby promote a elect thereof, is pronounced to assist a doing of that act.”
8. Section 109 of a Indian Penal Code provides for punishment of abetment that runs thus:
“109. Punishment of abetment if a act abetted is committed in outcome and where no demonstrate sustenance is finished for a punishment.– Whoever abets any corruption shall, if a act abetted is committed in outcome of a abetment, and no demonstrate sustenance is finished by this Code for a punishment of such abetment, be punished with a punishment supposing for a offence.
Explanation.–An act or corruption is pronounced to be committed in outcome of abetment, when it is committed in outcome of a instigation, or in pursuit of a conspiracy, or with a assist that constitutes a abetment.”
9. As per a clarification given in Section 107 of a Indian Penal Code, an abetment is constituted by any one of a following 3 ingredients:
“(i) instigating a chairman for doing of a thing, or
(ii) enchanting in a swindling for a doing of that thing, or
(iii) intentionally helping a doing of that thing.”
10. A chairman is pronounced to “instigate” another to an act, when he actively suggests or stimulates him to a act by any means of denunciation approach or surreptitious possibly it takes a form of demonstrate questionnaire or of hints, slur or encouragement. The word “instigate” means to goad, titillate forward, provoke, stimulate or inspire to do an act.
11. As Section 306 of a Indian Penal Code creates abetment of elect of self-murder punishable, therefore, for creation probable for an corruption punishable underneath Section 306 of a Indian Penal Code, it is a avocation of a assign to settle that such chairman has abetted a elect of self-murder and for a purpose of last a act of a accused, it is required to see that his act contingency tumble in any of a 3 mixture as enumerated underneath Section 107 of a Indian Penal Code and, therefore, it is required to infer that a pronounced indicted has instigated a chairman to dedicate self-murder or contingency have intent with one or some-more persons in any swindling for seeking that a defunct commits self-murder or he contingency intentionally assist by any act or bootleg elect of a self-murder by a deceased.
12. In (2001) 9 SCC 618 (Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh), it has been celebrated by a Supreme Court as under:
“20. Instigation is to goad, titillate forward, provoke, stimulate or inspire to do “an act”. To prove a requirement of urging yet it is not required that tangible difference contingency be used to that outcome or what constitutes urging contingency indispensably and privately be revealing of a consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to stimulate a outcome contingency be able of being spelt out. The benefaction one is not a box where a indicted had by his acts or repudiation or by a continued march of control combined such resources that a defunct was left with no other choice solely to dedicate self-murder in that box an urging might have been inferred. A word spoken in a fit of annoy or tension though intending a consequences to indeed follow can't be pronounced to be instigation.
21. In State of W.B. v. Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that a justice should be intensely clever in assessing a contribution and resources of any box and a justification adduced in a hearing for a purpose of anticipating possibly a cruelty meted out to a plant had in fact prompted her to finish her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to a justice that a plant committing self-murder was hypersensitive to typical petulance, conflict and differences in domestic life utterly common to a multitude to that a plant belonged and such petulance, conflict and differences were not approaching to satisfy a likewise circumstanced particular in a given multitude to dedicate suicide, a demur of a justice should not be confident for basing a anticipating that a indicted charged of helping a corruption of self-murder should be found guilty.”
13. Further, it is celebrated by a Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 327 (Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) as under:
“20. Abetment involves a mental routine of instigating a chairman or intentionally helping a chairman in doing of a thing. Without a certain act on a partial of a indicted to satisfy or assist in committing suicide, self-assurance can't be sustained.
21. The goal of a Legislature and a ratio of a cases motionless by this justice is transparent that in sequence to crook a chairman underneath territory 306, IPC there has to be a transparent mens rea to dedicate a offence. It also requires an active act or approach act that led a defunct to dedicate self-murder saying no choice and this act contingency have been dictated to pull a defunct into such a position that he committed suicide.”
14. In (2011) 3 SCC 626 (M. Mohan v. State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police), a Supreme Court, by a following observation, has clearly hold that in sequence to crook a chairman underneath Section 306 of a Indian Penal Code there has to be a transparent mens rea to dedicate a offence:
“45. The goal of a legislature and a ratio of a cases motionless by this Court are transparent that in sequence to crook a chairman underneath Section 306 IPC there has to be a transparent mens rea to dedicate a offence. It also requires an active act or approach act that led a defunct to dedicate self-murder saying no choice and this act contingency have been dictated to pull a defunct into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”
15. In 1995 (3) Supp SCC 731 (Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P.), a Appellant was charged of an corruption underneath Section 306 of a Indian Penal Code fundamentally formed on a failing stipulation of a deceased, that reads as under:
“My motherinlaw and father and sisterinlaw (husband’s elder brother’s wife) tormented me. They kick me abused me. My father Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has unlawful connectors with my sisterinlaw. Because of those reasons and being tormented we wish to die by burning.”
Their Lordships of a Supreme Court, deliberation a clarification of ‘abetment’ given in Section 107 of a Indian Penal Code, found that a assign and self-assurance of a Appellant for an corruption underneath Section 306 of a Indian Penal Code was not tolerable merely on a claim of nuisance to a deceased. It is serve hold that zero of a 3 mixture of abetment are captivated on a matter of a deceased.
16. In 2015 AIR SCW 4814 (State of Kerala v. S. Unnikrishnan Nair), a Supreme Court celebrated as under:
“11. The aforesaid sustenance was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797 by a twoJudge Bench and a contention therein is to a following effect:–
“Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. The corruption of abetment is a apart and graphic corruption supposing in IPC. A person, abets a doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any chairman to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or some-more other persons in any swindling for a doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or bootleg omission, a doing of that thing. These things are essential to finish abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, titillate on or move about by warning to do any thing. The abetment might be by instigation, swindling or conscious aid, as supposing in a 3 clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if a act abetted is committed in outcome of abetment and there is no sustenance for a punishment of such abetment, afterwards a delinquent is to be punished with a punishment supposing for a strange offence. “Abetted” in Section109 means a specific corruption abetted. Therefore, a corruption for a abetment of that a chairman is charged with a abetment is routinely related with a valid offence.”
12. In Analendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707, traffic with countenance of abetment a Court observed:–
“The countenance “abetment” has been tangible underneath Section 107, IPC that we have already extracted above. A chairman is pronounced to abet a elect of self-murder when a chairman instigates any chairman to do that thing as settled in proviso Firstly or to do anything as settled in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107, IPC. Section 109, IPC provides that if a act abetted is committed pursuant to and in outcome of abetment afterwards a delinquent is to be punished with a punishment supposing for a strange offence. Learned warn for a respondent State, however, clearly settled before us that it would be a box where proviso Thirdly of Section 107, IPC usually would be attracted. According to him, a box of abetment of self-murder is finished out as supposing for underneath Section 107, IPC.”
17. In a light of aforesaid eloquence of law, a contribution of a benefaction box are to be examined.
18. It is a box of a assign that a defunct consumed some unwholesome piece during her matrimonial residence in a inserted night of 14th and 15th Jul of 2014 during about 3:35 a.m. During a march of morgue exploration and investigation, statements of witnesses, namely, Kavita, mom of a deceased, Harshita, sister-in-law of a deceased, Pratap Tharwani, uncle of a deceased, G.S. Rajpal, maternal uncle of a deceased, Shankarlal, hermit of a deceased, Bhaktulal, other maternal uncle of a defunct were accessible by a prosecution. From examination of their statements, following contribution emerge:
(i) Allegedly, Applicant No.1/husband of a defunct was creation earthy attribute with a defunct daily. It is also purported that he was holding medicine daily for enhancing his passionate strength and he was also display pornographic clippings to a defunct and was creation assumed sex with her.
(ii) Allegedly, when a defunct was articulate during her maternal house, she was authorised to speak usually after switching on a orator of a mobile phone.
(iii) Allegedly, a defunct was underneath guess that her husband/Applicant No.1 was carrying unlawful attribute with Applicant No.4.
Apart from a above, no other claim is finished opposite any of a Applicants.
19. The spot-map shows that a defunct was vital alone along with her husband/Applicant No.1 in a room situated on a initial building of her matrimonial house. Therefore, a claim that a defunct was authorised to speak during her maternal residence usually after switching on a orator of her mobile phone is not acceptable. As regards a other allegations that Applicant No.1/husband was carrying unlawful attribute with Applicant No.4, he was creation passionate attribute with a defunct daily, he was also creation assumed passionate attribute with her, he was also holding medicine daily for enhancing his passionate strength and he was also display her pornographic clippings, even if for a outcome of justification they are deliberate to be true, these allegations can't be pronounced to be “instigation” as tangible underneath Section 107 of a Indian Penal Code. No doubt, a defunct committed suicide, though there is zero accessible to uncover that a Applicants instigated or abetted her in any approach to dedicate suicide. In a opinion of this Court, on deliberation and usurpation a whole element accessible to be positively scold and loyal on their face value, no prima facie box for framing of a charges opposite any of a Applicants for corruption punishable underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code is finished out as there is no sequence and vicinity with a control and poise of a Applicants with that of a self-murder committed by a deceased. None of a 3 mixture enumerated in Section 107 of a Indian Penal Code is found in a benefaction case.
20. Consequently, a rider is allowed. The impugned sequence framing charges opposite a Applicants for purported elect of corruption punishable underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code is set aside. It is hold that there is no element accessible for framing assign opposite a Applicants and, therefore, they are liberated from a charges framed opposite them underneath Sections 306 and 201/34 of a Indian Penal Code.
21. A duplicate of this sequence be sent to a Trial Court forthwith for information and required compliance.
(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge