Vimal Sharma v. State Of Haryana

 %

5 0001

0 HE HIGH COURT FOR THE IN TH E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH HARYANA AT CH ()   -3 +  ' &  )* % 





/   
+,+ +       

-



+4- +
 
!



 $."!
 !

"
/
-
"'!
0 - ,
'
) 
/
1
*!
002!
3 + /
'
&.!
0 - ,
) 


4.) 




"# $


 %&''%
0*

)+
,!
1 


1
5) 0. 
..
,
)

 



 % ()*
6'
)
'

,
 +
'
)
 
"

$

 

 




 







!
  
"
 !
#!
$ 0


 7
,

8"


,
  

%


"
&' 
!
(
 



7,
,
,
'

- 
,
'
))
,
)
,
, '
)
 
'



!

 )
,

,.

'
 
"!
 *
 

 +
,
'


-.
"-
"'.
'-
 



'

0
3)!
*!

)
)+
' 
+
0"
1
&.
'
'!
*'

*
.)
*
.
+
'
.)
/)!
,'
,
'
-.!

'
'
'
*

.
*'
'
)

'
+

"
,
'
.!
'
)

'
,.+
..
'

'
'


,

,,

*+
-+!

.)

'

'

,


"
2)!
('

9+
'
.
*
.).


-
+
'
)

'
,.+
..

)
'
-.
))+ "9+!
'
'
'

-
)+
*'
'
'

7'
+
6'
)


'
'
-
',
 )'++

'

6'
.)
,'

'

$

!
'
'

-
*'
'
-.



/!
*'
'
*
+

'
),
'
:


!
'

'
)

'
)'
 5) 


'.

*'
'
'

'

'.
'
'
*
)
6'



/

'
.
+!
'

'
'
'
*

0
3)!
"

!
 

3

'
'
'
' 

+
'
)
+
'
'


,
.
,
*+ +!


 
"

,

*


9
) 

)..
5.
,
'

 +
,
'
-.
*
 

(
-!
,,
 
"

,

*

 ,,
 
"
#!
$ 0


 7
,

*




6'
)
*


;

$


3
.
)'
*


)
+
'
)

'


(60
<+!
2.
,
-
,

:
 $

!
'
.)

) 
'
<))
,

'

'
)!

(-


,
'
='))
'
. 
+
'
)
*'

'
"'.!
*'

'
'
'

,,
*'
'

*

-
'
'
)
'
5


.
*'
*
,

'

.

>!

!

2 !
6!
 

'
.!
*'
'
-
.
'
"'.
*
+

'

'

'


 

-
'



!
 

'
,,
+!
'
)
'

-
*'
'
"'.

;

6'
 
'
"'.
*




;

-
'


.)

6'
)
'
,

))
,

,


,
'

,

0


"!
  !
*''
*
. !
- 
 


# 6'
)
)
'

,
+
'
)

'
 


'


+
'

'
'
'

,+
.)

'


,!
'
-.
*
,,
,.
>))+
 '


. 
+
,
'
 

'
+


 

'

,
+
'
6'
)


 +


;

$


6'
 
,
..
,
,,
)'
 
"
#
,

'-






'

'

'*
'

*
'
)!
*'
'

'
 
+
'
-.

'!
'
'
 

- 
,
'
. 
,
))+

. 
'
)..
5.
)
,
6'


+


.

,
))
*

-
+
)
'.

 +
+. 6',!



'
'
)
-


*

%

"
)
'

,
+
'
)  "!

)
*''!
'
)
*
'-
5
.
,,
*'

'
"'. 6'
-.
*
'-
.
,
))+
,.
1
!
''

'


. 
,
'
))
,.
'
+





'



'


6'
-
-
'
'
*
1

+
+
'
)

'
 *


,

.
,
*+
<
"
!

+


,
) 
 4.)!
'
*
'

,
'


'
+
)
,


,.
(60 !

)
*''!
'
*
-
'
*
'
)

 
'
"'.
'*
'
'+
*

.+
'
'

-
)+

'


)
'
,.
'
='))
'!




'
'
)
*



,
'
*,

+


'
 
*
))
'.
,
'
.



'
'


'
)

-+


),


6'
.
*

+


5.

6'

'
,
'
)?
. 
'.

 !
,
5  ,
,

6',!



'
'
)





.


'-


,
'
)

 
'
 '-

)
'
.
)



9.

The victim, who was married with the present petitioner from the last 12 years, had died a suicidal death on 30.07.2023. The post-mortem examination report reveals that she was brought dead in the hospital by the present petitioner on 30.07.2023 at 12:41 PM with alleged history of overdose of some drugs taken by her. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the

&

petitioner had been harassing the victim physically as well as mentally and even on 29.07.2023, the victim had made a call to the complainant while crying as some quarrel was taking place between the petitioner and herself and he had pacified her at that time but next day, when he called the petitioner to know about the well being of his daughter, he represented to her that she was sleeping. He raised suspicion that the petitioner after killing his daughter had taken her to hospital. A perusal of the challan report filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) reveals that during the course of investigation, it was found that the petitioner was having extra marital relations with co-accused Rakhi Sharma. Whatsapp chat record from the mobile phone of the petitioner has been retrieved by the investigating agency. 10.

The respondent-State has also placed on record the photocopies of Whatsapp chats, which took place between the petitioner and co-accused Rakhi Sharma on 30.07.2023 since 06:22 AM. On a perusal of the same, it is explicit that as on the previous night, a verbal altercation had taken place between the petitioner and the victim. What shocks the conscience of this Court is the discussion made by them with regard to victim. The relevant portion of the chats, which are though typed in Hindi language but its script is in English, may be reproduced as under :

Time Message Messages sent by the petitioner to co-accused Rakhi Sharma: 10:38 AM िफर मने इसके बाप को कॉल करके बोल िदया िक इसे समझा लो वरना मर मुरा जाएगी मेरे हाथ से ऐसे ऐसे बोल रही है 10:39 AM िफर इसने बोला िक छुटकारा चािहए ना मुझसे तो ये लो गई और ब%त सारी गोिलयाँ खा ली 10:41 AM िफर इसके बाप का फोन आया मेरे पास बोलते की इसने गोिलयां खा ली है तिबयत ठीक है इसकी मने कहा मुझे

1

नहीं पता की गोिलयां खाई है या नहीं लेिकन तु+ारे घर बात कर रही है 10:45 AM कल ब%त कलेश िकया और म रेडी था की मरती है तो मर जाए म िदखाने नही ले जाऊंगा कहीं In response to aforesaid messages, co-accused Rakhi Sharma had sent following messages:

10:46 AM पता नहीं 0ों मौत पड़ गई साली को 11:38 AM बेटू टच करके तो देख लो िजंदा है या िनकल गई In response to the aforesaid messages of the co-accused, the petitioner is shown to have responded as under :

11:53 सांस चल रही है बेटू 11.

The DITAC report annexed with the status report of the respondent-State also shows that Whatsapp chats between the petitioner and co-accused containing 802 pages had been retrieved. Even extracts of some relevant chats have been annexed with the report, which reveal that the petitioner and co-accused were in relationship since the year 2019. All this prima facie goes to show that the petitioner was having extra marital relationship with co-accused Rakhi Sharma and on the night of 29.07.2023, some altercation had taken place between the victim and the petitioner and shortly thereafter, she had taken overdose of the drugs, which she was admittedly taking for the treatment of seizures. The question is as to whether the act and conduct of the petitioner falls within the provisions of Section 306 of IPC.

The well settled proposition of law is that the abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. It also requires an active or direct act which led the victim to commit suicide seeing no option. From the Whatsapp chat record as discussed above, it is clearly reflected that just before the victim took overdose of some drugs on the night of 29.07.

0

him to prevail good sense upon the victim, otherwise she would be killed at his hands and immediately thereafter, the victim had told the petitioner to watch as he wanted to get rid of her. The words uttered by the petitioner to the father of the victim can be stated to be having a proximate link between the death of the victim and abetment of the same. By calling father of the victim, the petitioner certainly instigated and incited the victim to commit some drastic act, which obviously led to the suicidal death of the victim. What also needs to be discussed is that the petitioner, despite being well aware of the victim having taken overdose of her medicines in the previous night i.e. 29.07.2023, kept on waiting for her death on 30.07.2023 and just two hours before taking her to the hospital, he is shown to be saying that he was ready that the victim should die and he would not take her for treatment. His paramour is also shown to be saying that he should touch and check as to whether she is still alive or not?

12.

No doubt, it is well settled law that the factum of a husband having extra marital relations does not amount to harassment of such nature, which can be stated to be abetting a wife to commit suicide. However, it cannot be stated to be a case of only extra marital relations having led the victim to commit suicide but from the allegations levelled in the FIR and the record produced by the respondent-State, it is revealed that the petitioner by making a telephonic call to the father of the victim on the night of 29.07.2023 proclaimed that she could die at his hands if he (her father) did not make her understand and his saying so amounts to provoking, inciting and inducing the victim to commit suicide. This fact can also be gathered from the Whatsapp chats made between the petitioner and co-accucsed Rakhi Sharma, which has

6

already been discussed above. The possibility of different cause for the suicidal death of the victim is not revealed from any material available on record. Though, at this stage of deciding a bail application, this Court is not supposed to draw any conclusion with regard to the allegations as it is for the trial Court to give conclusive findings thereupon on thorough assessment and evaluation of the evidence to be produced on record before it but the allegations levelled in the FIR coupled with the record produced with the status report are indicative of the fact that the petitioner had been committing such wilful acts such nature as were likely to drive the victim to commit suicide, thereby amounting to committing the act of mental cruelty with her and also he had directly or indirectly instigated/provoked her to end her life and there was proximate link between the death of the victim and such instigation on his part.

13.

It will also not be out of place to mention here that as per postmortem report, the victim had been brought dead to the hospital at 12:41 PM, whereas till 11:55 AM, he had been busy in chatting with co-accused Rakhi Sharma, which unfortunately shows that how insensitive the petitioner was qua the victim and rather shows that he practically waited for her to die before she was taken to hospital. &)

-*
the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner does not deserve to be given benefit of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.





. 

'
+
-
. 
'
-

+
,
'
))
,
 
'
)
)

'
.
'
'-



'
.
,
'


' & % (MANISHA BATRA)


JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes