Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010(O&M) Date of decision:
11. 03.2013 Union Territory, Chandigarh ....Applicant-Appellant Versus Hemant Gautam and another ....Respondents.
CORAM:HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Hemant Bassi, Standing counsel for the applicant-appellant.
Mr.Devinder Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK J.
Leave to appeal is sought by Union Territory, Chandigarh against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.11.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
In a case registered by of FIR No.181 dated 10.06.2005 at Police Station Manimajra Chandigarh, for an Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --2-- offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 IPC on Kuldeep Singh committing suicide on 02.06.2005, the police had sent Hemant Gautam and Jaspreet Kaur to stand trial.
The brief facts of the case could be mentioned as under:- Mohinder Singh, SI of Police Station Manimajra received information regarding the aforesaid suicide and he reached H.
No.428, Pipliwala Town, Manimajra where he found dead body of Kuldeep Singh hanging to a ceiling fan .
The dead body was removed and inquest proceedings were conducted.
A register was found in the said room, which was taken into possession, which contained a suicide note to the effect that Hemant Gautam, Jaspreet Kaur and Kanchanwala, Advocate in collusion with each other had destroyed his house and on account of the same he was committing suicide.
After verifying the contents thereof, Mohinder Singh, SI had sent ruqa, on which case was registered.
During the investigation, statements of Devinder Singh and Charan Singh were recorded, who had alleged that Jaspreet Kaur after entering into partnership with Hemant Gautam developed bad habits and had left her matrimonial home and though she was told to mend her ways, she did not agree.
She also took away her belongings and her two Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --3-- sons from the house of the deceased in his absence and then he shifted to H.
No.428 Pipliwala Town, Manimajra where he was found hanging to a ceiling fan on 02.06.2005.
To prove the charge framed under section 306 read with section 34 IPC, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses.
Thereafter, accused were examined as provided under section 313 Cr.P.C.wherein they have admitted that they remained business partners for six or seven months.
They have denied having any other relationship.
According to Jaspreet Kaur, her husband was alcoholic and a drug addict and used to remain under depression.
She claimed that she has been falsely implicated at the instance of Devinder Singh and Charan Singh,so that she may not claim the property of her husband.
They have examined one witness in defence.
Hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel, learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh found the prosecution to have failed to prove its case and consequently both the accused were acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 09.11.2009.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the prayer is made for leave to appeal by Union Territory Chandigarh.
Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --4-- Learned standing counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that there had been illicit relations between Hemant Gautam and Jaspreet Kaur, on account of which Kuldeep Singh was disturbed.
According to him, Ex.P18/3 is the suicide note of Kuldeep Singh wherein he has clearly mentioned that the two respondents-accused and Kanchanwala, Advocate were responsible for his death.
According to him, the deceased loved his wife very much and when it was found that she was having illicit relations with Hemant Gautam, the deceased committed suicide.
He has further submitted that though the fault was on the part of Jaspreet kaur, yet she had made a complaint against the deceased to the police and had claimed that he was ill-treating her.
According to him, this was also a reason for the deceased committing suicide.
According to him, both the aforesaid pieces of evidence, which are duly proved in the statements of Devinder Singh, PW-4 and Charan Singh, PW-6 have been ignored by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the prosecution had even failed to prove any illicit relations between Hemant Gautam and Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --5-- Jaspreet Kaur.
According to them, the deceased was alcoholic and a drug addict , who used to remain under depression and on account of the same he committed suicide.
Charan Singh, PW-6 is the brother of the deceased.
Most of his statement is hearsay as having been heard from Devinder Singh, PW-4 or Kuldeep Singh, deceased.
Statement of Devinder Singh, PW-4 is, however, exhaustive.
He has stated that in July 2004 Jaspreet Kaur entered into a partnership with Hemant Gautam and a partnership deed was executed between them.
According to him, after that relations between Kuldeep Singh and Jaspreet Kaur started deteriorating.
He has stated that on 14.03.2005 Kuldeep Singh went to the office of Hemant Gautam, accused and asked Jaspreet Kaur to return to her matrimonial home.
There Hemant Gautam had challenged him to take away Jaspreet Kaur.
He had told him that it was open to him to take her away and that he was none to leave her.
Thereafter Devinder Singh told that Kuldeep Singh informed the parents of Jaspreet Kaur, who also went to persuade her to return to her matrimonial fold but she was adamant and did not listen to them also.
Thereafter, the last incident is a DDR lodged by Kuldeep Singh about Jaspreet Kaur reaching her matrimonial home in his Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --6-- absence and taking away her belongings and her two sons.
According to Devinder Singh, PW-4 finding himself alone at the house, he thought of leaving the bigger house and he shifted to H.
No.428 Pipliwala Town, Manimajra in a single room.
This all happened in the month of March 2005.
Thereafter there is no interaction between the deceased and the accused.
All of a sudden on 02.06.2005 the deceased was found having committed suicide at H.
No.428, Pipliwala Town Manimajra.
The suicide note Ex.P18/3 does not improve upon this matter.
The said suicide note only says that Hemant Gautam, Jaspreet Kaur and Kanchanwala, Advocate had destroyed his house and they are responsible for his death.
The suicide note does not give details of any acts committed by the accused towards the deceased.
A period of about 2-1/2 months during which there had been no interaction between the accused and the deceased is very much relevant in this case.
Section 306 IPC requires some positive act on the part of the accused of having abetted suicide by the deceased.
There is no such positive act in this case.
It is a case where the wife for some reasons took up business in partnership with Hemant Gautam and despite the persuasions of her husband and her parents, she did not leave the Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --7-- company of her partner and she had also taken away her children and her belongings.
These things might have left the deceased depressed.
However, this would not bring the case within the four corners of section 107 IPC, which defines abetment.
In similar situation where the husband contracted a second marriage against the will of his fiRs.wife and his fiRs.wife committed suicide after three months of the marriage and during this period the fiRs.wife was tortured physically and mentally by husband and second wife on two or three occasions.
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held the husband to be not guilty of abetment of suicide in Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v.
State of West Bengal 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 643.
In a similar case decided by this court in State of Punjab v.
Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 562 the husband committed suicide and his suicide note had stated that he was fed up with his wife, who was a woman of bad character and having illicit relations with three persons, the wife was not held guilty of abetment.
Taking an overall view in the matter, I do not find any fallacy in the reasons given and conclusions arrived at by learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in the judgment dated Crl.Misc.No.497-MA of 2010 --8-- 09.11.2009.
Consequently, no ground is made out to grant leave to appeal.
The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
For the reasons recorded above, the application is dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 11 03.2013 dinesh