SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vijay Kumar Sharma S/O Sh. … vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 28 September, 2018

(1 of 6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
1. S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 5582/2018
Smt. Santosh Sharma W/o Shri Govind Sharma, B/c
Brahman, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Agrasen Vihar Colony,
Hindaun City, District Karauli.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Director General of Police, Raj., Jaipur
3. Superintendent of Police, District Karauli, Raj.
4. SHO Police Station Hindaun City, District Karauli, Raj.
5. Investigation Officer In The, Fir No. 251/2018,
Registered At Police Station Hindaun City, District
Karauli Raj.
—-Respondents

Connected with

2. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5583/2018
Vijay Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Gopalsharan Sharma, B/c
Brahmin, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bada Gaon Teh. Mahwa,
District Dausa Raj. Currently Residing At Agrasen Vihar
Colony Hindaun City District Karauli Raj.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Director General of Police, Raj., Jaipur

3. Superintendent of Police, District Karauli, Raj.

4. SHO Police Station Hindaun City, District Karauli, Raj.

5. Investigation Officer In The, Fir No. 251/2018,
Registered At Police Station Hindaun City, District
Karauli Raj.

—-Respondents

3. S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 5123/2018
Priti Sharma W/o Shri Vijay Kumar, B/c Brahmin, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Bada Gaon, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa
(Raj.) Currently Residing At Agrasen Vihar Colony, Hindaun
City, District Karauli (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus
(2 of 6)

1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Director General Of Police, Raj., Jaipur

3. Superintendent Of Police, District Karauli, Raj.

4. SHO Police Station Hindaun City, District Karauli, Raj.

5. Investigation Officer In The FIR No. 251/2018,
Registered At Police Station Hindaun City, District
Karauli Raj.

—-Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta
Mr. Sanjay Sharma
For Respondents : Mr. R.S. Raghav, P.P.
For Complainant : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar with
Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Order
28/09/2018

Vide this order above mentioned three petitions would

be disposed of.

Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 482

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the

FIR No. 251/2018 registered at Police Station Hindaun City,

District Karauli for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 336

354 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

‘I.P.C.’) Later on Sections 143, 149, 452, 504, 506 306

I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that

no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. can be said to be made

out in the facts of the present case. FIR was lodged by the

deceased herself on 7.4.2018 with regard to incident dated

4.4.2018. Vimlesh committed suicide on 7.4.2018 after
(3 of 6)

lodging the FIR. There could be said to be no instigation at

the hands of the petitioners/accused to have abetted the

commission of suicide by deceased. Learned counsel for the

petitioners have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in JT 2010 (8) 331 in case of Chheena Vs.

Vijay Kumar Mahajan Anr., wherein it was held as

under:-

“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 that act must have
been intended to push the deceased into
such a position that he committed
suicide.”

Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 327

in case of Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh, wherein it was held as under:-

“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
(4 of 6)

deceased into such a position that he
committed suicide.”

Learned counsel have next placed reliance on the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2011 SC

1238 in case of M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police, wherein it was held as

under:-

“In the instant case, what to talk of
instances of instigation, there are even
no allegations against the appellants.
There is also no proximate link between
the incident of 14.1.2005 when the
deceased was denied permission to use
the Qualis car with the factum of suicide
which had taken place on 18.1.2005.
Undoubtedly, the deceased had died
because of hanging. The deceased was
undoubtedly hyper-sensitive to ordinary
petulance, discord and differences which
happen in our day-to-day life. In a joint
family, instances of this kind are not very
uncommon. Human sensitivity of each
individual differs from person to person.
Each individual has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. Different people
behave differently in the same situation.
It is unfortunate that such an episode of
suicide had taken place in the family. But
the question remains to be answered is
whether the appellants can be connected
with that unfortunate incident in any
manner?”

Learned state counsel who is assisted by the counsel for

the complainant has opposed the petitions. Learned state

counsel has further submitted that the case is being

impartially investigated by the Investigating Agency.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that

the deceased felt humiliated as her modesty had been

outraged by the accused and the fact that justice had not

been done to her as one of the accused is a police constable.

(5 of 6)

FIR was lodged on 7.4.2018 and the lodger of the FIR

Vimlesh committed suicide on 7.4.2018 by consuming some

poisonous substance. As per the prosecution story, deceased

had committed suicide on account of humiliation suffered by

her. It is the case of the prosecution that on 4.4.2018 at

about 8.30 a.m. accused had entered the house of the

complainant and had dragged her husband out of the house

after giving beatings to him. Modesty of the complainant was

outraged by the accused. However, deceased managed to

rush inside the house, but the accused pelted stones at the

complainant party and abused them and threatened them.

However, police did not take any action. One of the accused is

a police constable.

Section 107 I.P.C. reads 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
willful misrepresentation, or by willful
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.
Illustration A, a public officer, is
authorized by a warrant from a Court of
Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that
fact and also that C is not Z, willfully
represents to A that C is Z, and thereby
intentionally causes A to apprehend C.
Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C. Explanation 2.–
Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
the commission of an act, does anything
(6 of 6)

in order to facilitate the commission of
that act, and thereby facilitate the
commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act.”

Thus, as per the above provision whoever instigates or

aids or facilitates the commission of an act is said to have

abetted the commission of the offence. So far as the present

case is concerned, the investigation of the case is still going

on. Allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in

nature. As per the prosecution story, accused have given

beatings to the complainant and her husband and had

outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix. It is the case of the

prosecution that the complainant committed suicide on

account of humiliation felt by her at the hands of the accused

and the fact that she had failed to get justice as one of the

accused is a police constable.

Since, the case is still under investigation, at this stage,

no ground to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very

threshold is made out.

There is no quarrel with regard to the preposition of law

laid down vide the judgments relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioners, but the same fail to advance the

case of the petitioners as they are based on different facts.

Dismissed.

However, with the consensus of the learned counsel for

the parties, investigation of the case is directed to be

conducted under the supervision of Inspector General of

Police, Bharatpur.

(SABINA)J.

Mohita/18-20

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh