ORDER
J.B. Goel, J.
1. In this revision the petitioners who have been charged for offences under Sections 306/34 IPC and 498A/34 IPC vide order dated 24-3-98 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, (ASJ) New Delhi have challenged the correctness and legality of the order and the charges framed against them.
2. Briefly the facts as appear from the material on record are that Usha Malik (for short Usha), elder sister of the deceased Vaishali, was married to Sanjeev Malik (Petitioner No.3) on 30.1.1990. Petitioners No.1, 2, 4 & 5 are her father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth), and sister-in-law (Jethani). Usha has alleged that after her marriage for sometime she lived without trouble in the matrimonial home, but afterwards has been maltreated, beaten and harassed by the petitioners on account of inadequate dowry and demand of money which remained unfulfilled; she was being maltreated to compel her to bring money from her parents; against their demand of Rs.1,00,000/- to start a business for her husband a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid but they were not satisfied and still continued to harass her; the husband had also developed illicit relations with another lady, who also used to call her on telephone and gave threats at the instance of her husband; she was not being provided any money for meeting the house hold expenses or to meet her needs, and she had to earn her livelihood by stitching clothes for others. Her husband used to come home late and then used to maltreat and beat her. On the night of 16/17.1.1995 first she had received a threatening call from the aforesaid lady and her husband who came home late thereafter, also abused her and she was kicked out of the matrimonial home by the accused when she had to take shelter at the house of her parents late in the night. After some time in the night her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and Jethani also reached there and they started abusing her and others. The deceased Vaishali, who was sleeping, on hearing the noise woke up and she also reached there when the husband, both parent-in-law and Bhabhi of Usha started hurling abuse on Vaishali also and made false imputations against her about her character. Vaishali on this false imputation, closeted herself alone in a room without taking meals throughout the day and in the evening of 17.1.1995 consumed baygon spray and was found dead in her room. She was taken first to a private hospital and then to Safdarjung Hospital but was found to be brought dead. On intimation being given to the local police, a Sub-Inspector reached the hospital and found her dead. Post mortem was conducted on 18.1.1995. A report about the incident was lodged with the police by Shri B.K. Sheetak, brother of the deceased, on the basis of which FIR No. 41/95 was registered at P.S. R.K. Puram on 21.1.1995 under Sections 306/498A IPC. Her viscera was preserved and CFSL report was obtained which found presence of carbamite, an active constituent of Baygon Spray insecticide. After receipt of this CFSL report, the post mortem doctor was opined that the death was due to Carbamite poisoning . During investigation statements of several witnesses including those of Balraj (brother), Darshan Lal (father), Smt. Avinash Rani (mother), Smt. Usha (sister) of the deceased were recorded. Usha, sister of the deceased had also lodged a report dated 27.1.1995 with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women Cell, New Delhi giving a detailed account about her unfortunate married life, her being harassed, beaten, humiliated and maltreated by her in-laws on account of dowry demand and otherwise. A charge sheet was submitted by the police against the petitioners and on being committed the learned Additional Sessions Judge found prima facie case and framed charges under Sections 498-A/34 and 306/34 IPC against them all. The petitioners have come in revision here.
3. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioners has not challenged the order insofar as charge under Section 498-A/34 IPC against all the five petitioners is concerned and he has confined his challenge so far as it relates to framing of charge under Section 306/34 IPC against the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the deceased was the younger sister of the wife of Sanjeev Malik accused with whom the petitioners were not directly related or concerned and there was no occasion for them to have abused her as alleged nor there arose any reason or intention to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. Even otherwise the material relied neither amounts to instigation nor conspiracy, nor to aid the commission of the offence of suicide by her and thus the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out. The suicide was also committed long after the occurrence alleged which could not be due to alleged incident of night. In the facts and circumstances as there is no material to sustain this charge and the learned trial court has acted illegally in framing the charge under Section 306/34 IPC against the petitioners, the petitioners were admitted to anticipatory bail also because there was no case made out. He has relied on certain case law. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the State who has supported the impugned order.
5. At the stage of framing charge the allegations made in the complaint/FIR and other material relied by the police in report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. only has to be taken into consideration taking the evidence collected on its face value. At this stage the Court is not expected to screen evidence or to apply the standard as to whether the prosecution will be able to prove the case against the accused on trial.
6. There is sufficient evidence/material on the record to presume that the petitioners/accused have committed the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC. In view of the material on record and since the charge under Section 498A IPC is not disputed the impugned order to this extent calls for no interference.
7. The question then is whether the materials relied make out an offence under Section 306/34 IPC against all the petitioners or some or any of them
8. Post mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr.A.K. Sharma, Chief Medical officer, Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 18.1.1995 and he has noted the condition of the body of the deceased, had preserved blood and viscera of the deceased and on the basis of CFSL report he has given his opinion about the cause of the death being due to carbamite poisoning. A suicide note alleged to have been written by the deceased and found from the scene of occurrence has also been placed on record. The relations of the deceased have also stated that the deceased has died a suicidal death. This material prima facie shows that the deceased has died a suicidal death and not accidental or natural death.
9. Whether the petitioners have abetted this suicide by her
Sections 306 and 107 IPC read as under:-
'306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
'107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
xx xx xx xx
10. The case of the prosecution sought to be made out is abetment by instigation falling in Clause First of Section 107 IPC.
11. The Indian Penal Code does not define the word instigate. In Black's Law Dictionary the meaning of this word is:
Instigate: to stimulate or goad to an action especially of bad action; one of its synonym is 'abet'
Instigation: Incitation; urging; solicitation. The act by which one incites another to do something, as to commit some crime or to commence a suit.
12. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary it is defined as:
Instigate: bring about by incitement or persuasion: provoke, urge on, incite to esp. an evil act.
13. And in Webster's Dictionary it means to bring about by inciting, to incite (someone)
Instigate: something that instigates, a stimulus (According to this dictionary the word stimulus means: something that acts as a spur to mental processes)
14. A Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rishi Kumar v. State of Haryana 1988 (1) AICLR 615 has explained the meaning of the word 'instigate' as under (Para 9 page 618):-
'The word 'instigate' literally means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means, or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. To constitute instigation it is not necessary that express words should be used to indicate what should be done by the person to whom the directions are given. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is actually done by the person whom he abets. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetted was the instigation and nothing else, for it is humanly impossible for any tribunal to decide exactly, how much the instigation actually weighed in the mind of the person abetted.'
15. In interpreting the meaning of the word 'instigate' in Emperor v. Amiruddin Salebhoy AIR 1923 Bom 44 the learned Chief Justice in the course of his judgment has referred to with approval the following extract from the Russell on Crimes where the word instigation is explained as under:-
'Now a person is said to instigate another to an act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement.'
16. Thus in the context of an offence the word 'instigate' would mean to suggest, provoke, incite or encourage or stimulate to do an act or to urge forward.
17. What would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. The act of abetment thus has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire evidence in the case.
18. In Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and another 1989 SC 1661 also it was observed that:
'As to what would constitute instigation for the commission of an offence would depend upon the facts of each case. thereforee, in order to decide whether a person has abetted by instigation the commission of an offence or not, the act of abetment has to be judged in the conspectus of the entire evidence in the case. The act of abetment attributed to an accused is not to be viewed or tested in isolation.'
19. In that case apart from other maltreatment to which the wife was subjected by the husband, he had also retorted that 'she may put an end to her life the very same day and she need not wait till the next day to quit this world' when she had stated in despair that 'she had enough of torment and that she preferred death to living'. And thereafter the wife set fire to herself and died. It was held that the conduct and utterances had lead the wife to commit suicide and this amounted to abetment of suicide. In view of this law laid down in Brij Lal's case, with respect, the view taken in Gurbachan Singh v. State 1983 C.C.C 350 by a learned Judge of this Court and which has been followed by the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rishi Kumar v. the State of Haryana 1988(1) AIC LR 615, that the maltreatment of the wife by her husband and thereby creating circumstances which made the wife to end her life will not amount to abetment within the meaning of the word 'abetment' as defined in S.107 IPC, relied on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be said to be correct.
20. Usha, sister of the deceased was married to Sanjeev Malik, petitioner No.3 on 30.1.1990. They had a male child out of the wedlock. She was being harassed and beaten by the husband and also by her in laws after some time of the marriage. The reason was inadequate dowry and on account of demand of dowry/money from her parents. Some demand of money was met but the demand remained unsatiated. She was not even provided money to meet her household expenses and had to undertake the work of stitching the cloths for others to eke out livelihood for her. Apparently there was hostile atmosphere against her in the matrimonial home. Not only this the husband had allegedly, even developed illicit intimacy with a lady who was used to torment her, and used to threat her on telephone and the petitioner/husband used to give beatings to her at times; being provoked by that other lady; he also used to come home late at night and when also used to maltreat the wife. The condition of the wife in such circumstance must have become completely wrenched in her matrimonial home. This would have been in the knowledge of her parents and other relations. This was not only the case of cruelty and anxiety to the wife but must have also been the cause of anxiety to her relations. In the conditions of an Indian family this was a matter of grave concern for the wife as well as for her relations causing immense mental torment and loss of peace of mind of all.
21. On the night of 16/17.1.1995 the wife was abused, maltreated by the husband and then was kicked out of the matrimonial home in the dead of night when she had to take shelter in her parents house. The accused followed her there and started shouting and hurling abuses loudly on her and on others and thereby would have created an ugly scene in the night. Even neighbours had also collected there. And it is not their case that the accused had gone there to inquire about the welfare of the wife or to pursuade her to accompany them to her matrimonial home. Obviously their intention for going there was to create ugly scene at dead of night and malign and humiliate the wife and her relations. This was the backdrop of the incident. The noise of their shouts awakened the deceased Vaishali from her sleep. She also reached there, when the accused are alleged to have called her 'Whore' i.e. a prostitute and an unchaste woman and further addressed her by the utterances:
'Teri jesi ladki ko doob kar mar jana chahiya. Hame to teri laash dekh kar khushi hogi'. (Girl like you should die of drowning. We will be happy only on your death.)
22. She (Vaishali) was a grown up girl of 22/23 years of age, educated (graduate) and of marriageable age. She apparently belonged to a well to do family. These imputations made about her character, perhaps when neighbours were also present there, are highly derogatory, scandalous, contemptuous and defamatory and recklessly made without any rhyme or reason and without any provocation or excuse and obviously were aimed at to hurt and harm her. Her sister was already a victim of their cruelty and maltreatment. These words are highly provocative and stimulating enough to instigate her to end her life and would certainly have caused great mental shock and torture to the deceased. She remained closetted alone in a room without taking meals throughout the day, and afterwards consumed baygon unnoticed by others which resulted in her death the same evening. There was no occasion or excuse for this character assassination of a young girl who was not a stranger but a very close relation of the accused persons being the sister of wife of one of the accused and like their own sister and daughter. Apparently these highly derogatory utterances had great adverse effect on the mind of the deceased which is also clear from her suicide note. It is not necessary in law for the prosecution to prove that the actual operative cause in the mind of the person abetted was instigation and nothing else so long as there was instigation and the offence has been committed.
23. In these facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial court has prima facie held that charge under Section 306/34 IPC is also made out against the accused persons. At this stage it cannot be said that this conclusion is unreasonable or unjustified calling for interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. However, at the time of this incident I.P. Malik, petitioner No.4 was not present as it is not so alleged that he had also accompanied other accused to the house of the parents of the wife. He cannot be held liable for the acts of others. He is, thereforee, not liable for the charge under Section 306/34 IPC.
24. In the result this revision petition is partly allowed. Charge under Section 306/34 IPC against I.P. Malik, petitioner No.4 is quashed. But the order on charge against all the five accused/petitioners under Section 498/34 IPC and charge under Section 306/34 IPC against other four accused namely, C.P. Malik, Mrs.Kanta Malik, Sanjeev Malik and Smt. Suchi Malik is upheld.
25.The petition is disposed of accordingly.