Khajani Alias Khajani Devi v. State Of Haryana









 

 











!



"#

$$$$$%&


!'

'"
()
 *

$$$$$+,
 

  

 !
"


# 
%&


&$
-
#&./
,0
&
-
+&$
&$
1-
23&/
,,4$ 2/
&5$
"


# 

$ %&'(
$

(
$ 6$ /
-
3&
-,
+,
-
-&&
7&,
&,&/
3+
-

+


8'-&39-
-

+
4,
3,&
!
6

-
:-&5
9&;
!3&;-
!-/
  /
+&5&

.,
&
9&

+&5
<4

-
+&


)

$ 
,,
$$ /
3,&
!

/

%/
&9&,

%4
!
&=
!,&/
&
,$




&,
34
&
-
+&

-
;9
&
-
&4
>3+&?
3<.
-
-
449/

449,
9
-
+&
+&
&
093/



449,
-
-
+&
=-
-&
3,
-,
-&,
-
,,/
=--
4,
-.

..
3,$


3&-&
3<.
-
-&
&

+
449
-
=-
;,

-&.
-
<
.,
<5
-
+&

-
,,$


4
3<.
-
-&
3,/
.45/
!-.-&
!9-
-
<


9&,
-
&4

+&5
<4
<5
-
3&
0,
   $

'-
&40
7&
&,

3,&
8Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.", 2021

(2) SCC 427. After making reference to Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines 'abetment of a thing', it has been held that the first segment of Section 107 defines abetment as the instigation of a person to do a particular thing and the second segment defines it with reference to engaging in a conspiracy with one or more other persons for the doing of a thing, and an act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy. The third segment of abetment is founded on intentionally aiding the doing of a thing either by an act or omission. After making exhaustive reference to the settled law on this point in various authoritative pronouncements and specifically relying on the judgments of the Apex Court in "S S Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan", (2010) 12 SCC 190 and in "Madan Mohan Singh v.

State of Gujarat", (2010) 8 SCC 628, wherein it was held that a suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and it cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. Their Lordships also reiterate the position of law laid down in "Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana" (Criminal Appeal No.

"38. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of uicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of

  suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case."



.
&
 $6$ $


(
-
;9

-
3&/
&$
:-3+,&
!9-/
$ $2$/
&5/
+


<-4

-
&+,!$



-
.=-4/

-
0

&&/
-
+&
-44
<
&4,

&.
<4
3<1

-&
3&-9
+&4
,
3&5
<,

-


-
&&9@099
(&$
'-
+&
-44/
-=0&/
1
-
09

,
=-
44,
&
,
-44
4
<,
<5
-
,
+,
3,&
!
6>?

-
:-&5
9&;
!3&;-
!-/
  $A
$

',5/
-
4&,
!
34
-/

&3
.+&,

-.
<5
-
4
&,/
,
-
+3&3

-
.;9

-
-&<0
7&,
&,&/
-
+&>?

-,
1,
09
,
-


49&
&B3&,
&
3&-&
3,4
&&9$

$


0=

-
<0/
-
-&<0
7&,
&.
&,&
,,
$ 6$ /

-&<5
.,
&)*'+/
3<1

-
-&&
7&,
,

8>?
-
+&>?
-44

..


.4&

-
+&
C

>?
-
+&>?
-44

,&45
&
,&45
.;
5
,3./
-&
&
+&.


>?
-
+&>?
-44
.;
-.4@-&4
04<4
&
&&9
<5

+4
&

,
=-
&B3&,$A
$

'-
&,&
-34,

<
&,

8<4;A
&,&$

=44

<
&,
9&9
+&>?
,
+&
&.
&&$

-44
<
,

-
)
.,



,
=44

+&

&+

5
-&
,
-
040
..


$

$

,4

5
-
5-9
<&0,
-&<0
-44

<
&3,

<

+

-
.&

-
$
$"


# (





 
15
D--&
+;9@&,$


*@ 
D--&
+&<4$


*@