With the dust of Guru’s Lotus feet, I clean the mirror of my mind and narrate sacred glory of Sri Ram , The Supreme among the Raghukul. The giver of the four attainments of life.
Knowing myself to be ignorant, I urge you, The son of Pavan! kindly bestow on me strength, wisdom and knowledge, removing all my shortcomings.
Victory of Thee, O Hanuman, Ocean of wisdom and virtue, victory to the Lord of monkeys who is well known in all the three worlds.
Messenger of Ram with enormous strength, you are also known as “Anjaniputra” and the son of the Air God.
Oh Hanuman ! You are valiant and brave, with a body like lightening. You remove darkness of evil thoughts and are a companion of good sense and wisdom.
Shri Hanuman ‘s physique is gold colored. His dress is pretty, wearing ear-rings and his hairs are long and curly.
Shri Hanuman is holding in one hand a lighting bolt and in the other hand a banner with the sacred thread across his shoulder.
Oh Hanuman You are the emanation of ‘SHIVA’ and you delight Shri Keshri. The entire world propitiates.. You are adorable of all.
Oh Hanuman You are the repository of learning, virtue, you are very wise and are keen to do the works of Lord Ram.
You are eager to listen to the narration of Lord Ram’s story and revel on its enjoyment. You are in the hearts of Lord Rama, Sita and Lakshman.
You appeared before Sita in a very small form and spoke to her, while you assumed an huge form and struck terror by setting Lanka kingdom on fire.
O Hanuman with your big form you killed demons of Lanka and performed all acts of lord Ram.
When Hanumanji made Lakshman alive after bringing “Sanjivni” herb Lord Ram hugged you, His heart full of joy.
Shri Ram extolled Hanumanji’s excellence and remarked, “you are as dear to me as my own brother Bharat”
Shri Ram embraced Hanumanji saying: “Let the thousand – tongued ‘sheshnaag’ sing your glories”
The sages, saints, Lord Brahma, Narad and Goddess Saraswati along with Sheshnag the serpent, fail to sing the glories of Hanumanji properly.
What to talk of denizens of the earth like poets and scholars even Gods like Yamraj, Kuber, and Digpal fail to narrate Hanman’s greatness.
Hanumanji! You obliged Sugriva, you united him with Lord Ram and got him the Royal Throne.
It is known all over the universe that by following your advice, Vibhushana became King of Lanka kingdom.
Hanumanji you gulped Lord Sun at distance of thousands miles considering it to be a sweet fruit.
Carrying the Lord’s ring in his mouth, you went across the ocean. There is no wonder in that.
Oh Hanumanji all the difficult tasks of this world is made easy by your grace.
Oh Hanumanji You are guarding the door of Lord Ram’s mercy mansion or His divine abode. No one may enter without your permission.
By your grace one can enjoy all happiness and one need not have any fear under your protection.
When you roar all the three worlds tremble and only you can control your might.
Hanuman’s name keeps all the Ghosts, Demons & evils spirits away.
On reciting Hanumanji’s name all the maladies and pain disappears.
Those who remember Hanumanji in thought, word and deed are well guarded against their odds in life.
Oh Hanuman You are the caretaker of even Lord Rama, who has been hailed as the Supreme Lord and the Monarch of all those devoted in penances.
Oh Hanuman You fulfill the desires of those who come to you.
Oh Hanuman Your magnificent glory is acclaimed far and wide all through the four worlds and your fame is all over the cosmos.
Oh Hanuman You are the saviour of saints and sages and destroys the Demons, you are the darling of Lord Ram.
Hanuman has been blessed with mother Janki to grant to any one any yogic power of eight Sidhis.
Oh Hanuman You hold the essence of devotion to Lord Ram, always remaining His Servant.
Oh Hanumanji! through devotion to you, one comes to RAM and becomes free from suffering of several lives.
After death he enters the eternal abode of Sri Ram and remains a devotee of him, whenever, taking new birth on earth.
You need not hold any other God in mind. Hanumanji will give all happiness.
Oh Powerful Hanuman end the sufferings and remove all the pain from those who remember you.
Hail Hail Hail Lord Hanuman I beseech your Honour to bless me in the capacity of my supreme teacher.
One who recites this Hanuman Chalisa one hundred times becomes free from the bondage of life and death and enjoys the highest bliss at last.
As Lord Shankar witnesses, all those who recite Hanuman Chalisa regularly are sure to be benedicted.
Tulsidas always the servant of Lord prays. “Oh my Lord! You stay within my heart”.
O Shri Hanuman, The Son of Lord Air, Saviour The Embodiment of blessings, stay in my heart with Shri Ram, Laxman and Sita.
About Me
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
SURAJ PRAKASH vs STATE(Police):JUDGEMENT
Heard the argument on the bail petition filed by counsel for the petitioner Suraj Prakash who is in custody in connection with Deoghar Police Station case No.220/10,G.R.case No.605/10 registered under section 306/34I.P.C.(Abatement of sucide)on the basis of written complaint of Lok Nath Uraown A.S.I. to officer incharge Police Station,Deoghar.The learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer of bail.
Heard the argument and persued the record.From persual of the record it appears that the case has been instituted on the written application to Lok Nath Uraon,S.I. of town Police Station Deoghar.It has been disclosed that on 08.05.10 on the basis of written report of one Deepak Kumar Singh presently residing at Bompass Town at Deoghar,a case of unnatural death was registered bearing U.D Case No.12/10 at Deoghar Town P.S in which the daughter of Deepak Singh namely Priyanka(Dolly) aged about 22 years committed sucide by consuming Sulphos.The marriage of Priyanka of Bompas Town , going to be solmenised on 08.06.10.A letter was thrown in the house of Suraj Prakash Singh,making serios alligations regarding the charecter of Priyanka.There was talk between Suraj Prakash and Priyanka Singh on mobile phone,thereafter Priyanka committed sucide.
I have persued the case diary and the statements of the witnesses.It has been disclosed in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that the deceased had frequent talk with present petitioner.I have also persued the call details filled by the prosecution.From persual of the call details,it appears that the petitioner have not made any call on the day when the offence took place,to the deceased from the mobile,presented to him by the family members of the deceased.There is only oral statement visible that the father of the deceased that the petitioner shown desire to meet the deceased on the evening and prior to that she committed sucide.The petitioner have voluntarily surrendered before the court.Thus,in the given circumtances,petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of RS. 10000/with two surities of the like amount each to the saisfaction of the court cocerned.
Heard the argument and persued the record.From persual of the record it appears that the case has been instituted on the written application to Lok Nath Uraon,S.I. of town Police Station Deoghar.It has been disclosed that on 08.05.10 on the basis of written report of one Deepak Kumar Singh presently residing at Bompass Town at Deoghar,a case of unnatural death was registered bearing U.D Case No.12/10 at Deoghar Town P.S in which the daughter of Deepak Singh namely Priyanka(Dolly) aged about 22 years committed sucide by consuming Sulphos.The marriage of Priyanka of Bompas Town , going to be solmenised on 08.06.10.A letter was thrown in the house of Suraj Prakash Singh,making serios alligations regarding the charecter of Priyanka.There was talk between Suraj Prakash and Priyanka Singh on mobile phone,thereafter Priyanka committed sucide.
I have persued the case diary and the statements of the witnesses.It has been disclosed in the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that the deceased had frequent talk with present petitioner.I have also persued the call details filled by the prosecution.From persual of the call details,it appears that the petitioner have not made any call on the day when the offence took place,to the deceased from the mobile,presented to him by the family members of the deceased.There is only oral statement visible that the father of the deceased that the petitioner shown desire to meet the deceased on the evening and prior to that she committed sucide.The petitioner have voluntarily surrendered before the court.Thus,in the given circumtances,petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of RS. 10000/with two surities of the like amount each to the saisfaction of the court cocerned.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Recent Views of the Supreme Court on Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC
Posted here for own reference
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1301 of 2002 Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
( Justice Dalveer Bhandari , Judge Supreme Court of India and Justice AK Patnaik Judge Supreme Court of India)
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out section 306 of the Code:
“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.”
7. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui’ means `self’ and `cide’ means `killing’, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
8. Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal law, though at one time it was a felony in England.
10. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of IPC.
11. `Abetment’ has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads as under:
“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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
12. Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:
“Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled are as under:-
“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.”
14. The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.
15. Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. A three-Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”.Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation’. Para 20 reads as under:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. Or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
16. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another. (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
17. The Court in the instant case came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn.
18. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive 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.
19. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “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 others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
20. 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.
21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1301 of 2002 Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
( Justice Dalveer Bhandari , Judge Supreme Court of India and Justice AK Patnaik Judge Supreme Court of India)
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant is totally unsustainable because no ingredients of offence under section 306 of the Code can be made out in the facts and circumstances of this case. It would be profitable to set out section 306 of the Code:
“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.”
7. The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui’ means `self’ and `cide’ means `killing’, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
8. Suicide by itself is not an offence under either English or Indian criminal law, though at one time it was a felony in England.
10. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence, considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of IPC.
11. `Abetment’ has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads as under:
“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 places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”
12. Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:
“Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
13. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Mahendra Singh & Another v. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731. In the case of Mahendra Singh, the allegations levelled are as under:-
“My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband’s elder brother’s wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning.”
14. The court on aforementioned allegations came to a definite conclusion that by no stretch the ingredients of abetment are attracted on the statement of the deceased. According to the appellant, the conviction of the appellant under section 306 IPC merely on the basis of aforementioned allegation of harassment of the deceased is unsustainable in law.
15. Learned counsel also placed reliance on another judgment of this court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618. A three-Judge bench of this court had an occasion to deal with a case of a similar nature. In a dispute between the husband and wife, the appellant husband uttered “you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”.Thereafter, the wife of the appellant Ramesh Kumar committed suicide. The Court paragraph 20 has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation’. Para 20 reads as under:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. Or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”
16. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal & Another. (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trail for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
17. The Court in the instant case came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn.
18. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hyper sensitive 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.
19. This court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2009 (11) SCALE 24 had an occasion to deal with this aspect of abetment. The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word “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 others. Each person has his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight-jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
20. 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.
21. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 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 this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)