Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 7 docs - [View All]
Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code
Section 207 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 173 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ajay Patodia vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 July, 2003
Section 313 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savitri Devi vs State Of Haryana/ on 6 December, 2012
CRM-A-530-MA of 2010                                   -1 -


                                            CRM-A-530-MA of 2010
                                        Date of Decision:06.12.2012

Savitri Devi w/o late Sh. Bhim Singh r/o Batra Colony, Panipat.

                                               ..... Applicant/appellant

1.    State of Haryana/
2/    Kusum Rana w/o late Jaipal Singh caste Rajput r/o Batra
      Colony, Panipat.


Present: Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate
         for the applicant/appellant.


S.P. BANGARH, J The Criminal Miscellaneous application, in terms of Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short - Cr.P.C.) for grant of special leave to appeal, has been filed by Savitri Devi- applicant/appellant against the judgment dated 28.11.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, in Misc. Sessions case No. 48 of 2007, emanating from FIR No. 232 dated 04.06.2007 under Section 306 IPC Police Station Model Town, Panipat, whereby, respondent No. 2 (Kusum Rana) was acquitted of the charge framed against her.

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant/appellant CRM-A-530-MA of 2010 -2 -

along with her husband-Bhim Singh (deceased) had constructed their house in Batra Colony, Panipat and they were earning their livelihood by selling the milk of buffalos. Whenever, they needed money, they used to borrow the same from one Ranbir, Advocate, and they used to return the same to him. In their colony, Kusum Rana-respondent No.2 was also living after constructing her own house. A few days prior to the registration of this case, applicant/appellant learnt that her husband-Bhim Singh (deceased) had borrowed `20,000/-/ 25,000/- from Ranbir, Advocate and that amount was handed over to Kusum Rana-respondent No.2 vide some writing. A few days prior to this FIR, Kusum Rana-respondent No.2 called Bhim Singh (deceased) for reimbursement of money and he was also asked to bring the paper written by her. Thereupon, Bhim Singh (deceased) went to Kusum Rana-respondent No.2 along with document, who took that back, but did not reimburse the money. Then Bhim Singh (deceased) went to Kusum Rana-respondent No.2 number of times to take back the money. Kusum Rana-respondent No.2 refused to repay the money on the pretext that he (deceased) was not having documentary proof regarding borrowing of money.

Bhim Singh (deceased) told this to the applicant/appellant and since that day, he was keeping silence and was coming late in the house. On the day of occurrence, in the evening, information was received by the applicant/appellant that the corpse of her husband has been lying near the Dera of Sardar Chanan Singh. Thereupon, she along with her relatives reached there. She made statement supra before the police, inter-alia stating, therein, that the CRM-A-530-MA of 2010 -3 -

death of her husband had taken place due to shock suffered by him, because of non reimbursement of money by the respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) and due to that shock, her husband took some poisonous substance or he suffered heart attack.

On the statement of the applicant/appellant, formal FIR was registered in the Police Station. Inquest proceedings on the corpse of Bhim Singh (deceased) were conducted, which was sent to the mortuary for autopsy. Diary and suicide note were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for comparison. On 05.06.2007, Kusum Rana (respondent No.2) was arrested.

After completion of investigation, Station House Officer, Police Station Model Town, Panipat instituted police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appears that respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) had committed an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.

On presentation of police report, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) and the case was committed to the Court of Session, which was entrusted to the learned trial Court, who framed charge under Section 306 IPC against respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana), whereto, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.

At the trial, prosecution examined Ranbir Singh as PW1, Gaje Singh as PW-2, Rajinder as PW-3, Savitri Devi as PW-4, Dr. Bijender Singh as PW-5, Suraj Bhan ASI as PW-6, Suraj Bhan as PW-7, Vijay Singh SI as PW-8, Umar Mohammad as PW-9, Sunil Photographer as PW-10, Fateh Singh as PW-11, Mahabir Singh HC CRM-A-530-MA of 2010 -4 -

as PW-12, Kaptan Singh HC as PW-13, Naresh Kumar Stamp Vendor as PW-14, Ajayvir as PW-15, Joginder Pal as PW-16, Amit Kumar Constable as PW-17, Harbans Lal Inspector as PW-18, Jaswant Singh EHC as PW-19 and Sukhbir Singh Inspector as PW- 20 and closed evidence later.

After the close of prosecution evidence, respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, she denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

Respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) was called upon to enter in defence and she examined Ram Narain Bansal as DW-1, Dharambir as DW-2 and closed defence evidence, later, after tendering the copy of statement Ex.D-1.

After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 28.11.2009, acquitted the respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) of the charge framed against her by the learned trial Court for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. Aggrieved, thereagainst, Savitri-applicant/appellant has filed the present application for grant of special leave to appeal seeking to set aside of the impugned judgment and for convicting and sentencing the respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) for the offence, wherefor, she was charged by the learned trial Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has been heard and the record perused with his assistance.

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant mainly repeated the allegations levelled by the latter in her statement made by her before the police, which formed the basis of formal FIR. He further CRM-A-530-MA of 2010 -5 -

contended that respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) had borrowed `25,000/- from Bhim Singh-husband of the applicant/appellant (deceased) for constructing her house and a pronote was executed between them and when Bhim Singh (deceased) demanded the money back, respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) told him to bring original pronote, which was given to her by Bhim Singh (deceased), but she tore the same to destroy the proof of borrowing of `25,000/- by her from Bhim Singh (deceased) and the latter, had written down these facts in his diary, as also, he had written a suicide note regarding the conduct of respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana), which abetted him to commit suicide.

Thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has been given, but no merit found, therein, as, if the deceased (Bhim Singh) had advanced `25,000/- to respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) and she was not returning the amount, he could have legal remedy, which was available to him. If she had torn the pronote and receipt, Bhim Singh (deceased) could report the matter to the police for taking action against respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana).

The point arises for consideration is as to whether non- reimbursement of amount by the respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) to the deceased (Bhim Singh) constitutes abetment given by former to the latter to commit suicide.

Reliance has been rightly placed upon "Ajay Patodia v. State of M.P, 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 728 by the learned trial Court, wherein, accused was to pay `16.75 lacs to deceased, which CRM-A-530-MA of 2010 -6 -

was not paid despite repeated demands. It put the deceased to economic crises and he committed suicide. It was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that no case of abetment was made out. It was also held that there was no allegation that accused had knowledge or intention that deceased would commit suicide.

In the case in hand also, there is no allegation against the respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) that she had a knowledge or intention to the effect that the deceased (Bhim Singh) will commit suicide, if money is not returned to him. In the judgment (supra), even, criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC against the accused were quashed.

Reliance can also be placed upon "Cyriac and another v. The S.I. of Police, 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 525, wherein, deceased was not paying `200/- to accused, which deceased owed to accused. Accused made insulting remarks in public, "you are a burden on earth, why can't you go and die". Deceased committed suicide same night by taking poison. It was held by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that accused was not guilty of abetment, as he had no mens rea and he was not to gain anything from death of the deceased. It was also held that accused only wanted to get back his `200/-.

In the case in hand, no mens rea can be ascribed to respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana), who also did not use any harsh word to the deceased (Bhim Singh).

In the suicide note, deceased had stated that he was having two children and both of them had died in an accident. That may have caused depression to deceased resulting into commission of CRM-A-530-MA of 2010 -7 -

suicide by him.

Learned trial Court rightly observed that refusal to repay the amount taken as loan by respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) is not covered under the ground of abetment and secondly, the suicide was not committed by the deceased pronto after refusal. If the deceased went to think and re-think over 20 days, it would show that he was under depression for many reasons. Even, the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant failed to point to any judgment, wherein, the accused was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC on such types of allegations, which have been levelled in the FIR against respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) The learned trial Court, thus, committed no error in acquitting the respondent No.2 (Kusum Rana) of the charge, for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, framed against her by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from no illegality or impropriety, which must be upheld and affirmed.

Resultantly, leave to appeal is declined to the applicant/appellant and CRM-A-530-MA of 2010 is dismissed.

(S.P. BANGARH) JUDGE December 06, 2012 Sham