(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)
