MAHIPAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of section 401 Cr.P.C. by Mahipal and others challenging the order dated 2.11.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ambala vide which the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial for an offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 IPC on an application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C.

(2.) In the case registered by way of FIR No. 21 dated 15.1.2011 at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala for an offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the police had sent Mulakh Raj, Jagpal and Gurdas to stand trial. The police found the petitioners to be innocent and placed their names in column No. 2 of the challan. At the trial, an application was made under section 319 Cr.P.C. and vide order dated 2.11.2011, learned Sessions Judge, Ambala allowed the application and summoned the petitioners to face trial for the offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 IPC. Before noticing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to take a note of the facts emerging from the FIR. Samey Singh, the Sarpanch of village Sarakpur, Police Station Mullana is complainant of this case. After narrating the facts about a clash between the parties of Suresh Pal and Suresh Kumar on 26.12.2010 and 30.12.2010, he has mentioned about a compromise between the parties under which the parties decided that the trial may proceed against one person on each side. So, one person on each side was arrested and was granted bail by the court. However, the party of Suresh Kumar kept a grudge in this regard. On 15.1.2011 at about 7.30 PM, party of Suresh Kumar attacked the house of brother of the complainant, named, Mohinder Singh. The complainant along with one Balbir Singh reached there and saw that Suresh Kumar and his sons Mulkh Raj and Jagpal as also Rajinder Singh, Jai Singh, Gurdas, Vinod, Mahipal, Dalip Kumar holding sticks and iron rods in their hands were shouting and using abusive language loudly. According to him, they were challenging his brother to come out of the house and were throwing brick-bats, stones also on account of which, his brother locked himself in the house due to fear. Seeing the complainant and others having arrived at the spot and also being afraid of police, the above named assailants went away with their respective weapons. After that, the complainant alongwith others including the wife of his brother, namely, Kamla Devi knocked at the door on which the door was opened and they saw that Mohinder Singh had been hanging with a rope around his neck to the hook of the ceiling fan. They immediately removed him from the hook and brought him to MM Hospital, Mullana where the doctors declared him as "brought dead". Samey Singh concluded the narration of the FIR by saying that his brother Mohinder Singh after being harassed by the attackers committed suicide by hanging himself for which he prayed for suitable action.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the complainant appeared as PW-4 at the trial and being alive to the fact that the version contained in the FIR does not make out a case under section 306 IPC, he tried to improve upon the case by adding that the accused persons were saying that the sons of brother of the complainant were of quarrelsome nature and were drunkard and they were telling his brother to commit suicide by hanging as he had no right to live due to the nature of his sons. According to him, thereafter, Samey Singh, the complainant (PW-4) has stated that on hearing their words, his brother went inside the house. He has submitted that this statement on the part of Samey Singh is not there in the FIR. According to him, this improvement is on a very material aspect of the case and this part of his statement cannot be believed. He has further submitted that the story of the prosecution is quite discrepant. According to him, nothing appears as a reasonable answer to the question as to who opened the door of the room in which his brother had locked himself. He has further submitted that mere abuses and throwing of brick-bats and stones, none of which had hit the deceased, would not bring the case within the definition of abetment under section 107 IPC. According to him, there is no instigation on the part of the petitioners to the deceased to commit suicide and there is no intentional aid on their part for the deceased to commit suicide.