KARTAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BEURO OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order on charge dated 28.5.2005 as well as the formal charge framed on the same date by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioners have been charged of having committed offences (i) under Sections 498-A/34, IPC and; (ii) under Sections 306/34, IPC. The petitioners are the parents-in-law and two brothers-in-law of the deceased (Shobha). The said Shobha had committed suicide by hanging herself in the matrimonial home on 1.3.2000. She did not leave any suicide note. Her husband [Mangal Singh] with whom she was married on 23.1.1992 also tragically committed suicide in the year 2001. He was a handicapped person and was on a wheel-chair. It is stated that he committed suicide by driving his wheelchair on to a railway line and he was hit by a moving train.

(2.) The facts as per the prosecution case in brief are that on the night intervening 1st and 2nd March, 2000, the deceased (Shobha) had committed suicide at about 2.00 a.m. by hanging herself from the ceiling of a room in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that she married Mangal Singh (since deceased) on 23.1.1992 and a girl child was born to them in the year 1999. Soon thereafter, in an accident, the said Mangal Singh became paralysed. As noted above, the deceased (Shobha) did not leave any suicide note. It is the case of the prosecution that after her marriage, Shobha was being taunted for bringing less dowry and was being harassed on account thereof. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- is alleged to have been given by her father a few days after her marriage to Mangal Singh for his business as he was allegedly unemployed. It is further the case of the prosecution that Mangal Singh squandered the said sum of Rs. 50,000/- in gambling and drinking and thereafter he raised a further demand of Rs. 2 lakhs which could not be fulfilled. The prosecution also alleges that Shobha was ill-treated and harassed by the present petitioners as she was not able to give birth to a child and this harassment continued till 1999 when she gave birth to a girl child as mentioned above. Till 1999, Shobha was being subjected to mental cruelty by being told that her husband would be married elsewhere.'It is further alleged by the prosecution that since Mangal Singh, shortly after the birth of the girl child, was paralysed on account of the accident, the deceased (Shobha) was being taunted that she gave birth to a girl child which brought bad luck to the petitioners. It is these circumstances which, according to the prosecution, drove the said Shobha to commit suicide. On the basis of these allegations, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the following conclusion:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the case of the prosecution, even if taken in its entirety and is assumed for the purposes of this petition to be established, does not disclose the offence under Section 306, IPC. He submitted that Section 306, IPC has to be read in the light of Section 107, IPC which defines 'abetment'. He submitted that the ingredients of Section 107 are not made out in the present case as there is no instigation or goading. Secondly, there is no allegation of any conspiracy and, thirdly, there is no intentional aiding in the doing of an illegal act. He also submitted that there is no suicide note in the present case. He referred to the following decisions: (i) Hira Lal Jain v. State, 87 (2000) DLT 265=2000 (2) JCC 478 (Delhi); (ii) Netai Dutt v. State of West Bengal, II (2005) SLT 586=I (2005) CCR 212 (SC)=JT 2005 (3) SC 46; (iii) Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, III (2002) SLT 513=II (2002) CCR 189 (SC)=2002 III AD (Cr.) SC 1.