The accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty : Jammu High Court
If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society, then the accused has the right to acquitted. This was held in the judgment passed by a single judge bench comprising of HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, in the matter State of J&amp;K V. Ram Parkash &amp; ors. [CRAA No. 10/2006], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajouri in case titled State Vs. Ram Parkash &amp; ors. under Sections 498-A/306 RPC. The prosecution case against the accused persons is that Mst. Anita Devi was married to accused-Raj Pal, in the year 1988, they have two children but since she suspected that her husband-A2 had illicit relation with Champa Devi-A4, wife of Ram Parkash (A1), therefore, she was slighted from time to time and was also subjected to ill-treatment and beating. She committed suicide by jumping in the well. After recovering of her dead body, police registered a case under Section 498-A RPC but after receipt of the post-mortem report, added the charge under Section 306 RPC so all the accused were charged under Sections 306 &amp; 498-A RPC.  The Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 &amp; 498-A RPC. Even though none of the ingredients to make out the charge of 498- A RPC have been mentioned. The question is whether there was any abetment or inducement to the deceased, which drove her to commit suicide, that too, after giving birth to two children and after eight years of married life. But the question is whether the suspicion about her husband’s extra-marital relation was the result of mental sickness and if so, does it mean, she had committed suicide because she was suffering from depression. The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of the aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law. After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition and held that it is a clear case that the deceased was suffering from depression getting fit periodically as she was suffering from a psychotic problem due to which she committed suicide as revealed in the medical evidence. There is no ground for interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Click here to view judgement
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU State of J&K V s Ram Parkash & ors. Through: Mr. Arshad Majid Malik Dy.A.G CRAA No. 10 2006 Pronounced on : 12 .06.2020 …. Appellant(s) with Ms. Monika Thakur Assisting Through: Mr. Jagpaal Singh Advocate. Coram : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA JUDGE This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.08.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge Rajouri in case titled State Vs. Ram Parkash & ors. under Sections 498 A 306 RPC. The prosecution case against the accused persons is that Mst. Anita Devi was married to accused Raj Pal in the year 1988 they have two children but since she suspected that her husband A2 had illicit relation with Champa Devi A4 wife of Ram Parkash therefore she was slighted from time to time and was also subjected to ill treatment and beating. She committed suicide by jumping in the well on 08.04.1996. As her brother Surinder Kumar came to know from one Ved Parkash that she was missing since 08.04.1996 so he went to her in law’s house and searched for her but she could not be traced thereafter he got an application drafted and reported the matter to the Station House Officer Police Station Nowshera. However on 13.04.1996 her dead body was found from the village well. 2 CRAA No. 10 2006 After recovering of her dead body police registered a case under Section 498 A RPC but after receipt of the post mortem report added the charge under Section 306 RPC so all the accused were charged under Sections 306 & 498 A RPC. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 306 & 498 A RPC. Even though none of the ingredients to make out the charge of 498 A RPC have been mentioned. Appeal has been filed on the ground that as the offences have been proved as such the order of acquittal is against law because there is no appreciation of evidence by the trial Court. The question is whether there was any abetment or inducement to the deceased which drove her to commit suicide that too after giving birth to two children and after eight years of married life. The allegation is that her husband was having extra marital affairs with accused Champa Devi wife of the elder brother of Raj Pal. This is in the statement of Rano Devi mother of the deceased. The deceased according to the witnesses had disclosed this to her mother. This is also stated by PW Dev Raj father of the deceased but he does not say as to who told him about this. He also deposed that A1 & A4 used to trouble her. He also stated that a day before she went missing the deceased had come to collect her children who were with them and went back in the same evening. He also stated that Ram Parkash and his wife Champa Devi used to ask the deceased to ask her father to provide her a piece of land and also to construct house for them but he also admitted that his daughter has been living separately from A1 & A4 as her husband was in the Army. It is also in his statement that the deceased lived with her mother in law in a separate house while Ram Parkash and his family lived 3 CRAA No. 10 2006 separately as they have two houses. He also deposed that she came to stay with the parents in the month of January 1996 and stayed for a month whereafter her husband came and she went back with him. PW Suraj Parkash is a Mason by profession. His father found corpse of the deceased in the well whereafter he was asked to inform the village head Nambardar. He also stated about having constructed separate house of A1 Ram Parkash. PW Sunita Kumari stated that the deceased was her sister who was harassed by the accused Champa Devi and Ram Parkash but on cross examination stated that the accused Raj Pal used to stay separately. Assuming that the allegation that Raj Pal was having extra marital affairs with the elder brother’s wife it would be quite unusual that while the deceased confided with her mother and not with her sister PW Sunita Kumari also did not say a word about this though she spoke that both A1 and his wife had abused her sister. But the question is whether the suspicion about her husband’s extra marital relation was the result of mental sickness and if so does it mean she had committed suicide because she was suffering from depression. Prosecution witnesses state that for a mental problem the deceased used to be taken for treatment at Dhianpur Gadhi. PW Rano Devi and her husband Dev Raj both stated that the deceased was taken to Dhianpur Gadhi for treatment for not bearing a child. Whether it is correct or otherwise the fact has been admitted by PW Jeet Ram who is the village head an old man of 72 years at the time when he was examined as a witness. In cross examination he stated that he once asked Raj Pal about the state of mental health of the deceased he admitted that she had some problem for which they used to go to Dhianpur Gadhi i.e. a sacred place where the 4 CRAA No. 10 2006 villagers go for treatment on the basis of faith in such places. There is no reliable evidence against the allegations of her husband’s extra marital relation with her real elder brother’s wife as no one spoke about it prior to her death. Pw Subhash Chander has stated that the deceased used to be taken to Dhianpur because she used to get fits. This could not be the reasons for suicide. It appears that she was a weak minded woman having suicidal tendency. It is in the evidence that both Ram Parkash and his wife used to harass the deceased as stated by her mother PW Rano Devi. But in case of similar allegations in case titled Mahendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. 1995 SuppSCC 731 which was referred by Apex Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1 SCC 750 in Para 11 it has been held as under: “11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. In Mahendra Singh the allegations levelled are as under: 1....My mother in law and husband and sister in lawharassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister in law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning." The Court on the aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.” 5 CRAA No. 10 2006 which is also reproduced below: Their lordships stated the law in Para 17 of the said judgment 17. 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.” Again in Amalendu Pal Alias Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal 1 SCC 707 their lordships were referring to Section 306 IPC observed in Para 10 as under : “10. The legal position as regards Sections 306 IPC which is long settled was recently reiterated by this Court in Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab as follows in paras 12 and 13:Whether the order is speaking : Yes. Whether the order is reportable : Yes. 