Alok Singh, J.@mdashAjay Singh Parveen and Deepak Vashisht have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated
18.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, declining to discharge the accused/revisionists as well as assailing the charges
framed against the revisionists to face trial u/s 306 IPC as well as u/s 3(1)(x) of S.C/S.T. Act.
2. Brief facts inter alia art that the case in question was registered on the statement of Charan Singh. Case of the prosecution in brief is that
Jaspreet Singh since deceased was a student of MBBS GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh. On 27.01.2008 he went to GMCH, 32, Chandigarh but
did not return. On that day there was an Euphoria (a cultural event) function in the college. He did not return to the house then at about 8/8.15.,
telephone calls were made to the friends of Jaspreet Singh who replied that Jaspreet Singh was in the college till noon. Complainant and his wife
then went to the college and searched of their son. They found their son''s jacket lying in the library. No person was present in the library at that
time. They asked from the security guards about the whereabouts of their son and on further search they found one of the bathrooms which was
nearer to the library, locked. The said bathroom was bolted from inside. In the said bathroom they saw that their son had tied his neck with a
parna and was hanging with the pipe of toilet tank. With the help of friends of Jaspreet Singh, his body was got down. They took him to emergency
ward. Doctor after checking has declared him brought dead. Suicide note was found in the pocket of jacket of Jaspreet Singh. On the basis of said
statement case was registered. After completion of necessary formalities challan against the accused N.K. Goyal was filed. Accused Ajay Singh
Parveen and Deepak Vashist were not challaned. The said case was committed to the court of Session and was entrusted to the Special Court
under SC/ST Act. On consideration charge u/s 306 IPC and 3(x) of Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was
prima facie found and made out against accused N.K. Goyal. In support of the case prosecution examined Charan Singh PW.l. Learned APP
moved application u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure vide order dated 21.1.2010 accused Deepak Vashist and Ajay Singh Parveen were
summoned as additional accused. Thereafter, charges u/s 306 IPC and u/s 3(x) of the S.C/S.T. Act were also framed against the present
Petitioners. Hence, revision.
3. Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, learned Counsel for the revisionists has vehemently argued that Petitioner No. 1 himself is a Scheduled Caste, hence no
offence can be said having been committed by him u/s 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST Act. He has further argued that there is no mention about Petitioner
No. 2 in the suicide note. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that the only allegation against the Petitioner is that Petitioners used to
harass the deceased and behaviour of the Petitioners was cruel towards the deceased, hence cruel behaviour or harassment from the side of the
Petitioners to the deceased will not amount to abetment, hence no offence u/s 306 IPC is made out against the Petitioners/accused.
4. Ms. Ashima Mor, learned Standing Counsel, has refuted the arguments of Mr. Ahluwalia and contended that due to harassment and coercion,
deceased was forced to commit suicide hence offence u/s 306 IPC is made out. She has further argued that Petitioner No. 2 is rightly charged u/s
3(x) of S.C/S.T. Act.
5. Now, it has to be seen as to whether any offence prima facie can be said having been made out u/s 306 IPC or u/s 3(x) of S.C/S.T. Act against
the accused/Petitioners justifying framing of charged against them u/s 306 IPC and u/s 3(x) of the S.C/S.T. Act.
6. Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in paragraph No. 12 has observed as under:
Even if we accept the prosecution story that the Appellant did tell the deceased to go and die'', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
''instigation''. The word Instigate'' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens
rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or in a spur of the moment
cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotional.
Hon''ble Apex Court Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and Others, in paragraph No. 15 has held as under:
15. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a
wife is often harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section
306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.
Hon We Apex Court in the matter of Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana 2008 (2) RCR (Cri) 810 : 2008 (2) RA.J. 272 : AIR 2008 SCW
3202 in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 has held as under:
10. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A
person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, me doing of that thing. These things are essential to
complete abetment as a crime. The word ""instigate"" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The
abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act
abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be
punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. ''Abetted'' in Section 109 means the specifics-fence abetted. Therefore, the offence
for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.
11. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. The mere fact
that the husband treated the deceased-wife with cruelty is not enough.
Recently, the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matter of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr. 2010 (4) RCR (Cri) 66 in paragraph Nos.
27, 28 and 29 has held as under:
27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), had an occasion to deal with, this aspect of abetment. The Court
dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words ""instigation"" and ""goading"". The Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person''s suicidability pattern is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-
esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on
the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
28, 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 u/s 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 that act must have been intended to push the deceased
into such a position that he committed suicide.
29. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-to-
day life. Human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
7. In all the dictums, Honble Apex Court has held that neither the harassment nor cruel behaviour without element of mens rea to instigate or aid in
committing suicide resulting in suicide of the deceased would amount to instigation or abetment to constitute an offence u/s 306 IPC. In the opinion
of this Court even if entire prosecution story is believed behaviour of the Petitioners can only be said to be cruel or harassment without any intent to
derive Jaspreet Singh to commit suicide. There is no iota of evidence to say that Petitioners have mens reato derive the deceased to commit
suicide.
8. Section 3 of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989 reads asunder:
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities - (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
(i) forces a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to drink or eat any inedible or obnoxious substance;
(ii) acts with intent to cause injury, insult or annoyance to any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by dumping excreta, waste
matter, carcasses or any other obnoxious substance in his premises or neighbourhood;
(iii) forcibly removes clothes from the person of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or parades him naked or with painted face
or body or commits any similar act which is derogatory to human dignity;
(iv) wrongfully occupies or cultivates any land owned by, or allotted to, or notified by any competent authority to be allotted to, a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or gets the land allotted to him transferred;
(v) wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of is
rights over any land, premises or water;
(vi) compels or entices a members of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do ''begar'' or other similar forms of forced or bonded labour
other than any compulsory service for public purposes imposed by Government;
(vii) forces or intimidates a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not to vote or to vote to a particular candidate or to vote in a
manner other than that provided by law;
(viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
(ix) gives, any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or
annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(xi) assaults or uses forces to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty;
(xii) being in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and uses that position to exploit her
sexually to which she would not have otherwise agreed;
(xiii) corrupts or fouls the water or any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled
Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;
(xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such
member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have
a right to use or access to;
(xv) forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-
(i) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being inn force shall be punished with
imprisonment for life and with fine; and if an innocent member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe be convicted and executed in
consequence of such false or fabricated evidence, the person who gives or fabricates such false evidence, shall be punished with death;
(ii) gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to be convicted or an offence which is not capital but punishable with imprisonment firf a term of seven years or
upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less man six months but which may extend to seven years or upwards
and with fine;
(iii) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause damage to any
property belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine;
(iv) commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause destruction of any
building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a place for human dwelling or as a place for custody of the properly by a member of a
Scheduled Caste of a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 to 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term often years Or more against a person
or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine;
(vi) knowingly or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed under this Chapter, causes any evidence of the commission of that
offence to disappear with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the
offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence; or
(vii) being a public servant, commits any offence under this section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
one year but which may extend to the punishment provided for that offence.
9. From the perusal of Section 3 it is thus clear that to constitute the offence u/s 3 accused should not be a member of Scheduled Caste or a
Schedule Tribe.
10. Since, Petitioner No. 1 undisputedly himself is a Scheduled Caste hence no offence u/s 3(lXx) is made out against Petitioner No. 1.
11. Alleged suicide note does not contain any mention about Petitioner No. 2. There is no evidence on therecord to prima facie prove that
Petitioner No. 2 has done anything in contravention of any Sub-section of Section 3 of S.C./S.T. Act. There is no into of evidence on record to
suggest that Petitioner No. 2 2 ever humiliated the deceased in public view.
12. In the opinion of this Court accused can be charged and can be asked to face trial only when Court finds prima facie evidence on the record
suggesting that accused has committed any offence. If accusation cannot result in the conviction then accused must be discharged and should not
be asked to face criminal trial.
13. In the opinion of this Court, from the material available on the record, orders impugned ought not to have been passed and Petitioners should
have been discharged from the offence u/s 306 IPC and 3(2)(vii) of SC/ST Act.
14. Petition is allowed. Impugned orders are quashed.