Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh Kumar And Another on 11 December, 2013
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 ( CENTRAL): THC: DELHI
SC No. 41/10
ID No. 02401R1003692003
FIR No. : 793/2002
Police Station : Patel Nagar
Under Section : 306 IPC
State
Versus
Rajesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Meher Singh
R/o VPO Bayan Puri,
Sonipat, Haryana
............Accused No. 1
Krishna Devi
W/o Late Sh. Meher Singh
R/o VPO Bayan Puri,
Sonipat, Haryana
.............Accused No. 2.
Date of Institution : 04.08.2003
Date of committal of Sessions case : 10.08.2010
Date of judgment reserved on : 26.11.2013
Date of judgment announced on : 11.12.2013
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar Passey, Advocate, counsel for both the
accused.
Sh. Inder Pal Khokar Advocate, counsel for complainant
SC No. 41/10 Page 1 of 41
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
JUDGMENT :
1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on December 12, 2002 at about 7.30 AM Dharamvir @ Sonu (PW2) informed the police of police station Patel Nagar that his cousin (daughter of his bua) Geeta Rani aged about 35 years to whom he left in her house in a good and sound condition while leaving for Kamla Market to the house of his friend and when again came back today i.e. on December 12, 2002 in the morning, he found his cousin Geeta Rani had committed suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan. The said information was recorded vide DD No. 34A (Ex.PW7/C) and same was assigned to SI Ramphal (PW11). On reaching the spot dead body was got sent to DDU Hospital through Const. Sukhdev Singh where Dr. R.K. Mishra declared her dead. Request was made to SDM, Patel Nagar to conduct inquest proceeding, accordingly inquest was conducted on December 12, 2002.
2. It was alleged that Sh. Sunehra Singh (PW1) and Smt. Kamlesh (PW3) i.e. parents of deceased got recorded their statement before the SDM. Satnam Singh (PW6) and Dharamvir @ Sonu also got recorded their statement to the SDM. After post-mortem, doctor opined that cause of death was due to hanging and time since death was 1-1 ½ day.
3. It was alleged that an FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of Sunehra Singh who alleged that deceased Geeta Rani was married with accused no.1 Rajesh on April 30, 1998 and everything was all right with his daughter for few months in her matrimonial house but thereafter her in-laws started harassing her for dowry. On September 13, 1999, deceased came to his house as she had fed up with the accused persons and in the meantime she had given a birth to a male child. It was SC No. 41/10 Page 2 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another alleged that after staying 8 months in his house, his daughter had joined service as Pharmacist in GB Pant Hospital. It was alleged that Meher Singh father-in-law of deceased went to the hospital and threatened the deceased by stating that he had given a sum of ` 1 lac for her service after withdrawing the same from his GPF and asked the deceased to come at her matrimonial house otherwise being the police official he would take her forcibly. It was alleged that Meher Singh was working in Delhi Police. It was further alleged that Meher Singh had sent 3-4 boys to GB Pant Hospital on April 22, 2000 to pick up the victim forcibly, consequently a complaint was lodged at CAW Cell at I.P. Estate. It was further alleged that deceased told him that she was being threatened time and again in the hospital. It was further alleged that when victim went to Patiala House Court to attend her case, accused Rajesh and Meher Singh abused her, accordingly an FIR was registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 341/506 IPC. Thereafter, accused Rajesh had filed a divorce petition against deceased which was pending in the Court. It was further alleged that whenever his daughter i.e. deceased used to go to Court to attend her case, accused persons used to misbehave with her and also used to use unparliamentary language on the way, at bus stand and in the hospital. Accordingly, deceased got lodged DD No. 5 in the concerned police station and also lodged an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406/431/506 IPC and she had also filed a case for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. It was alleged that on November 26, 2000 Rajesh came to the hospital and threatened the deceased. Thereafter, Rajesh and Meher Singh visited the hospital on November 28, 2000 and threatened the deceased. It was alleged that deceased had narrated the same to the complainant when she visited Chandigarh and told him that she could not tolerate their threats any more and intimated the complainant that they had threatened her time and again and also threatened that they SC No. 41/10 Page 3 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another would kidnap her son. However, complainant and her family members pacified the deceased and sent her to Delhi. It was alleged that on December 01, 2002 she was so frighten that she decided to resign from her service. It was alleged that on December 10, 2002, deceased informed the complainant on phone that in night one of their relatives along with her mother-in-law i.e. accused no.2 Krishna Devi came to her house and threatened her. It was alleged that in this way his daughter Geeta Rani was tortured and due to their torture, she had committed suicide. On her statement an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 304 B IPC was registered.
4. As per charge-sheet, family members of accused persons also levelled certain allegations against the deceased and her parents, consequently, the matter was transferred to DIU, West District and investigation was assigned to ACP Rajiv Ranjan. During investigation, the role of Dharamvir @ Sonu raised some suspicion, accordingly, he was summoned for the purpose of interrogation. During interrogation, he broke down and admitted that he had illicit relations with deceased for the last three months prior to her death. However, neighbours started raising finger of suspicion about their relationship as Geeta Rani introduced him as her brother. The statement of Dharamvir @ Sonu was recorded through secret micro recorder. During investigation, it was further revealed that in-laws of deceased never visited the house of deceased and neighbours had doubted about the relationship of deceased and Dharamvir @ Sonu as they were residing in a small room sharing one bed and no other person was residing in the said room. During investigation, Dharamvir @ Sonu further divulged that one day he asked the deceased what would happen if their relationship would be made public. Upon this, Geeta Rani retorted that on that day she would not see this world again. He further divulged that Geeta SC No. 41/10 Page 4 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another Rani had tried to commit suicide at two earlier occasions; once by trying to inject herself with deadly drug; second time by hanging herself with a fan.
5. After concluding investigation, a closure report was filed before the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate with the following findings: -
i. That the deceased Geeta Rani was living separately from her in-laws in Baljeet Nagar for the last three years prior to her death.
ii. That the in-laws of the deceased never visited the rented premises of the deceased.
iii. That she developed illicit relations with her cousin (the son of her maternal uncle).
iv. That the neighbours of the deceased raised fingers about in which way the deceased and her cousin were living in a small room and sharing one double bed.
v. That when the locality people raised fingers about the relations of Geeta Rani and Sonu, she tried to commit suicide at two more earlier occasions vi. That she committed suicide due to incestuous relations. vii. That there was no dowry demand or harassment from her in- laws "soon before her death"
viii.That the Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satbir Singh v/s State of Punjab (2001), 8 SCC: 2002 (Cri.) 48 AIR 2001 SC 2828.
6. Vide order dated November 10, 2003, Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejected closure report and took the cognizance for SC No. 41/10 Page 5 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The said order was challenged by the accused persons before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by filing a criminal revision petition No. 938 of 2003, which was allowed with the following direction :
"For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. But, the matter does not end here. I feel that it deserves a re-look by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate without being influenced by the observations in Criminal Misc. No. 9871/2003. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate for a fresh examination of the cancellation report and surrounding circumstances and to pass an order after giving another opportunity to the parties. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate shall pass the order without being influenced by any observation in Criminal Misc. No. 9871/2003 or in the present order."
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate reconsidered the matter and opined that there are sufficient material to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC against both the surviving accused persons i.e. Rajesh and Krishna Devi vide order dated June 05, 2010.
8. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C, case was committed to the Court of Sessions on August 3, 2010. Thereafter, case was assigned to the learned predecessor of this Court on August 10, 2010, accordingly, case was registered as Sessions Case No. 41/10.
9. Vide order dated November 18, 2010 a charge for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 41/10 Page 6 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
10. To bring home the guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as following 12 witnesses:
PW1 Mr. Sunehra Singh, complainant, father of
deceased
PW2 Dharamvir Singh @ Sonu, cousin of deceased
PW3 Smt. Kamlesh, mother of deceased
PW4 Mohd. Ali Ashraf, the then SDM, Patel Nagar
PW5 Mr. Bhupinder Singh, brother of deceased
PW6 Mr. Satnam Singh, neighbour of deceased
PW7 ASI Pushpa, duty officer, proved the DD No.34A
and FIR
PW8 Constable Manikeshar, formal witness
PW9 Constable Sukhdev Singh, formal witness
PW10 Dr. L.K. Baruah, proved the autopsy report
PW11 Retd. SI Ramphal Singh, investigating officer
PW12 Dr. V.K. Soni, proved the MLC of deceased
11. On culmination of prosecution evidence, both the accused were examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein accused no.1 took the plea that he was running a photo stat machine in his village, thus, he was not earning handsome amount. When Geeta got a job in Delhi, her parents started pressurizing her to separate from joint family and to start living in Delhi. They even pressurized her to take divorce. It was submitted that Geeta also started threatening him and his family that she would implicate him and his family in false dowry case. She had also lodged false complaint in this regard. She also started living separately in Delhi. During her stay in Delhi, she developed illicit relations with Sonu @ SC No. 41/10 Page 7 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another Dharamvir. Due to that reason, neighbours started raising objections. To hide her relationship, she made several attempts to commit suicide. At last she had committed suicide. It was further submitted that since the brother- in-law of his father-in-law named SI Rajender Singh was working in Delhi police, his father-in-law in collusion with SI Rajender Singh had falsely implicated him and his family. It was further submitted that his father was also working in Delhi Police and he was awarded about 200 commendation certificates. It was further urged that his father-in-law knew his father prior to his marriage with Geeta and whenever he (his father-in-law) was in the need of money, he used to take from his father. Accordingly, he claimed that he and his mother are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.
(i) Accused No.2 took the plea that the marriage between her son (accused no.1) and Geeta was solemnized and couple was happy. She had delivered a male child and all were very happy. Sunehra Singh (father of deceased) had taken her to his house on the eve of marriage of some relative in the family but since then he was not interested to send Geeta back. Despite their several requests and the fact that Rajesh (accused no.
1) was sent to bring her back, he did not send Geeta. He threatened that he would ruin their family. It was submitted that Sunehra Singh did not send Geeta to her matrimonial house as Rajesh was not doing any job. It was urged that after the death of Geeta, Sunehra Singh has falsely implicated her and her family members in this false case.
12. In order to prove their innocence, accused persons examined following six witnesses:-
DW1 Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, the then ACP
SC No. 41/10 Page 8 of 41
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
DW2 Inspector Anil Kumar, joined investigation with
DW1
DW3 Constable Bimlesh Kumar, formal witness
DW4 Ramesh Chand, neighbour of accused persons
DW5 SI John P.K., formal witness
DW6 Ghanshyam, clerk, formal witness
13. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted his written statement wherein it was contended that even after registration of the case, police officials were playing in the hands of accused persons and made several attempts to protect the accused persons. It was submitted though due to the protest lodged by the complainant, investigation was handed over to ACP Rajeev Ranjan, yet entire investigation was conducted by SI Anil Kumar and he tortured, abused, harassed and beaten PW2 Sonu @ Dharamvir to compel him to make a false statement that he had illicit relations with the deceased and due to that reason she had committed suicide. It was submitted that in collusion with the accused persons, police had manufactured this false story to protect the accused persons as one of the accused Meher Singh (since deceased) was working in Delhi Police. It was submitted that in collusion with the accused, police had filed a cancellation report but Court rejected the report and summoned the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC.
(i) It was submitted that complainant (PW1) has proved the guilt of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt as he categorically deposed that after the marriage accused persons started to harass the deceased by demanding a scooter. It was submitted that deceased had given a birth to a male child on January 24, 1999 and she was turned out from her SC No. 41/10 Page 9 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another matrimonial house on September 13, 1999 in three clothes along with minor child. Though deceased asked her mother-in-law to return her jewelery but accused persons did not return the same.
(ii) It was submitted that deceased had joined G.B. Pant as Pharmacist on April 17, 2000. It was stated that her father-in-law Meher Singh visited the hospital and threatened her to return her matrimonial house and told her that he had paid ` 1.00 lac after withdrawing the amount from his G.P. Fund to secure the job for her.
(iii) It was further contended that on April 22, 2000, three-four young boys including accused Rajesh visited the hospital to abduct Geeta forcibly and in this regard Geeta lodged a complaint with police post G.B. Pant and then lodged an FIR No. 479/2000 under Section 498A/406 IPC at PS I.P. Estate.
(iv) It was further submitted that on March 14, 2001 when both the parties were coming out after attending the hearing from the Court, accused Rajesh and Meher Singh had assaulted Geeta and at that time Meher Singh attempted to guillotine Geeta with the help of her chunni. In this regard, a complaint was lodged but police did not register the FIR, accordingly a complaint was filed under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, accordingly, an FIR No. 86/2002 under Section 341/506 IPC was registered at PS Tilak Nagar.
(v) It was submitted that accused Rajesh and Meher Singh used to follow her, abuse her on her way to office and in this regard Geeta had lodged a complaint vide DD No. 33 on January 4, 2001 at PS Patel Nagar and also lodged a complaint at police post LNJP on June 20, 2002.SC No. 41/10 Page 10 of 41
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another Complainant had also lodged DD No. 14A on September 11, 2000 and on April 16, 2002 Geeta lodged a complaint with Commissioner of Police and same is exhibited as Ex. PW1/D. On July 18, 2002 Geeta lodged another complaint with Commissioner of Police vide Ex. PW1/E.
(vi) It was submitted that on November 26, 2002 accused Rajesh and Meher Singh had visited G.B. Pant Hospital and threatened the deceased stating that if she made any statement against them in Court, they would get her killed and this fact was told by Geeta to complainant when she visited the house of complainant at Panchkula on November 28, 2002. Somehow, they pacified the deceased and persuaded her to go back and she was sent to Delhi on December 1, 2002. PW1 deposed that deceased was willing to leave her job.
(vii) It was submitted that on December 10, 2002 accused Krishna along with another lady visited the deceased at her rented house at Baljeet Nagar and she threatened the deceased. Intimation of death was given by PW2 Sonu @ Dharamvir.
(viii) It was submitted that though PW1 was cross-examined in depth but nothing could be extracted which may cause any dent in his testimony. It was submitted that from the testimony of PW1 it is proved that deceased was badly tortured, harassed and threatened regularly by the accused persons, thus, they forced and compelled her to take her life. It was submitted that PW3 and PW5 i.e. wife and son of PW1 respectively fully supported the testimony of PW1, thus, there is no reason to disbelieve their testimony.
(ix) It was further submitted that PW2 is another important SC No. 41/10 Page 11 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another witness and he also supported the prosecution case by deposing that on December 12, 2002 while he was taking dinner with deceased, she told him that her-in-laws were torturing her and they were giving threats to her life and told that they would forcibly take the custody of her child. He further deposed that deceased was very much disturbed and weeping while telling repeatedly that she was receiving threats at bus stand and in hospital from her-in-laws.
(x) It was further submitted that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of defence witnesses as they are interested witnesses. It was urged that since beginning police investigation was aimed with an intention to save the accused persons somehow as one of the accused Meher Singh was very influential person. DW1 did not call any relative of deceased and the explanation given for that lapse is that he was short of time. This itself shows that he did not act impartially. He even did not call any public independent witness at the time of interrogating Sonu @ Dharamvir. He did not remember when he visited the place of occurrence. He did not examine the chemist from where deceased allegedly purchased injection to commit suicide. It was submitted that the alleged recording was made on April 16, 2003 but it was seized on April 20, 2003 and during trial no evidence is produced to prove that the alleged voice was of Sonu. It was submitted that Sonu has deposed that he had not made any such statement to the police, thus, it was contended that no reliance can be placed on the alleged transcription. It was further submitted that all defence witnesses are false and interested witnesses, hence no reliance can be placed on their testimony. It was submitted that DW1 and DW2 also failed to state who typed the alleged transcription, which proves that it was a fabricated document.
SC No. 41/10 Page 12 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
(xi) It was further submitted that even if for the sake arguments, it is presumed that deceased had illicit relations with Sonu; it means that she was living comfortably and enjoying the life with PW2, then there was no occasion for her to commit suicide.
(xii) It was contended that the abatement of suicide has to be established by totality of surrounding circumstances where perpetual harassment, mental torture, social isolation, public humiliation not only followed the deceased till the point of her death but also outlived her death in the shape of a false and scandalous story relating to her extra marital affairs with her first cousin. It was submitted that in fact such relationship was not probable within the moral and social bounds of human life.
(xiii) In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for complainant cited the following judgments:
(a)) State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532
(b) Hira Lal & others v. State of Govt. of NCT Delhi, 2003 (3) CCJ 255 Supreme Court
(c) Gurbachan Singh v. Satpal Singh & others (1990) 1 SCC 445
(d) Sahebrao and others v. State of Maharashtra, 2006 II AD (CR) SC 270
(e) Rajneesh Gonga v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2009 (2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 366 Delhi
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the contentions raised by counsel for complainant and did not raise any additional contention. Nor he cited any other citation.
SC No. 41/10 Page 13 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
15. Counsel appearing for the accused persons vehemently opposed the contentions raised by counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. It was sagaciously contended that the marriage between accused no. 1 and deceased was solemnized on April 30, 1998 and since September 13, 1999 deceased was residing separately at Baljeet Nagar, Delhi whereas accused persons have been residing in Sonipat, Haryana. It was further contended that deceased was working as Pharmacist in G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi whereas accused no. 1 was unemployed, thus, it was argued that it was not feasible for the accused persons to harass, torture the deceased to such an extent which may compel her to commit to suicide.
(i) It was astutely contended that though prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses, yet prosecution case is based on the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5. All are close relatives of deceased as PW1 & PW3 are parents of deceased. PW5 is the brother of deceased and PW2 is the first cousin of deceased. It was argued that the PW1, PW3 and PW5 were not residing with the deceased and the alleged incident had not taken place in their presence. It was contended that though said witnesses claimed that deceased had told them about the alleged threats given by accused on phone, but no evidence has been produced that deceased had made any call to any of the said witnesses on the day of incident. It was submitted that in the absence of any such evidence, no reliance can be placed on their testimony.
(ii) It was perspicaciously contended that whatever allegations leveled by PW1 in his examination-in-chief pertained to the period much prior to the date of incident, thus, these incidents if there is any substance therein are not sufficient to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. It was SC No. 41/10 Page 14 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another further contended that from the cross-examination of said witnesses it becomes explicit that the said witnesses have made substantial improvements in their deposition with an intention to hold the accused persons liable for the alleged incident. It was contended that no reliance can be placed on the improvements made by the witnesses as it affects the core of prosecution case.
(iii) It was energetically contended that though PW2 is the first cousin of the deceased but she had illicit relations with him and this fact was admitted by PW2 during the course of investigation and the transcription of his statement is already on the record. It was further contended that from the testimony of PW2 it is lucid that deceased was very much concern about her future as she asked PW2 to come in the early morning at about 5:00 AM, so that she could handover ` 30,000/- and application form to him to deposit the same in HUDA office, Chandigarh. It was contended that it is admitted case of prosecution that PW2 remained with the deceased till 10:00 PM, it means that till 10:00 PM, she was not inclined to commit suicide otherwise she would have not asked the PW2 to come in morning to collect form and the amount of ` 30,000/-. It was contended that prosecution has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to establish that any of the accused met with the deceased after 10:00 PM. It was thus contended that PW2 had said something to the deceased which provoked her to end her life. It was further contended that in fact deceased had illicit relations with PW2 and when PW2 informed her about his marriage, probably deceased had lost her balance and committed suicide. It was further contended that the second probability is that their relationship may be objected by the neighbours and due to that reasons she had committed suicide.
SC No. 41/10 Page 15 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
(iv) It was further vigorously contended that deceased had not left behind any suicide note. Had accused persons been responsible for her death she would have certainly left a suicide note, this further shows that accused persons were not liable for her death.
(v) It was further contended that no doubt Meher Singh father of accused no. 1 was working in Delhi Police, but he was working as wireless operator. Mere fact that Meher Singh was working in Delhi Police is not sufficient to arrive at conclusion that all investigating officers were dishonest to their duties and acted at the instruction of deceased Meher Singh. It was submitted that the matter was investigated by the officer rank of ACP and it is beyond imagination on what basis complainant is making allegations that police had not investigated the matter fairly and impartially. It was further contended that even the close relatives of PW1 and PW2 are also working in Delhi Police. If this is the criteria of making allegations, then it can be also said that complainant had falsely implicated the accused persons with the aid of their relatives who are working in Delhi Police.
(vi) It was further contended that since both the parties made allegations to each other, accordingly, matter was transferred to DIU/West and investigation was handed over to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, ACP/DIU/West, who investigated the matter thoroughly and after investigation it was revealed that deceased had illicit relationship with PW2 and due to that reason, she had committed suicide. Accordingly, he filed cancellation report.
(vii) In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the following judgments:
SC No. 41/10 Page 16 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
(a) Ashok Kumar & another v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2009 VII AD (DELHI) 63
(b) Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & another, 2010 (3) 412 (SC)
(c) Hira Lal Jain v. State, 2001 CRI.L.J. 1212 (DELHI)
(d) Sonu & others v. State, 2010 VI AD (DELHI) 904
(e) S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, 2010 (3) LRC 252 (SC)
(f) Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P., 2010 (1) LRC 45 (SC)
(g) Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp (3) SCC 438
16. I have heard rival submissions advanced by counsel for both parties at length, perused the record, written submissions, citations carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
17. Before dealing with the contentions raised by counsel for both the parties, I deem it appropriate to have a look over the settled proposition of law.
18. In Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828, it was held by the Apex Court:
"....The said Section 306 penalises abetment of suicide. It is worded thus : "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 extend to ten years, SC No. 41/10 Page 17 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another and shall also be liable to fine." It is a unique legal phenomenon in the Indian Penal Code that the only act, the attempt of which alone will become an offence. The person who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of the offence under Section 309, IPC whereas the person who committed suicide cannot be reached at all. Section 306 renders the person who abets the commission of suicide punishable for which the condition precedent is that suicide should necessarily have been committed. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide. But nobody would abet a mere attempt to commit suicide. It would be preposterous if law could afford to penalise an abetment to the offence of mere attempt to commit suicide.
17. No doubt Section 306, IPC read with Section 113- A of the Evidence Act is wide enough to take care of an offence under Section 304-B also. But the latter is made a more serious offence by providing a much higher sentence and also by imposing a minimum period of imprisonment as the sentence. In other words, if death occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of the marriage as a sequel to the cruelty or harassment inflicted on a woman with demand of dowry, soon before her death, Parliament intended such a case to be treated as a very serious offence punishable even up to imprisonment for life in appropriate cases. It is for the said purpose that such cases are separated from the SC No. 41/10 Page 18 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another general category provided under Section 306, IPC (read with Section 113-A of the Evidence Act) and made a separate offence."
(emphasis supplied)
(i) In Ramesh Kumar v. Chhattisgarh, AIR 2001 SC 3837, it was held by the Apex Court:-
".....What happened on the date of occurrence is very material for the purpose of recording a finding on the question of abetment."
"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........A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
12. This provision was introduced by Criminal law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit SC No. 41/10 Page 19 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four- corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to any one outside the occupants of the house. However still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the above said circumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. The Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the above said three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case'. A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the SC No. 41/10 Page 20 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another presumption or may dictate the conscience of the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression -'The other circumstances of the case' used in Section 113A suggests the need to reach a cause and effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase 'May presume' used in Section 113A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says- 'whenever it is provided by this Act that Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved or may call for proof of it."
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal and another (1994) 1 SCC 73, it was held:
"We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial, however, intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and SC No. 41/10 Page 21 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A, I. P. C. and S. 113- A of Indian Evidence Act. Although, the Court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials places on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater ((1950) 2 All ER 458, 459) has observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject-matter".
(emphasis supplied)
(iii) In Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and Anr. AIR 1989 SC 1661 it was held that :
"Where there was overwhelming evidence that the accused had made the life of his wife intolerable by constantly demanding money and made it clear to her that if she wanted to die, she may do so on very SC No. 41/10 Page 22 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another same day and give him relief forthwith, thereby spurring her and goading her to commit suicide, the case would squarely fall under the first category of abetment under Section 107."
(iv) In Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, AIR 2008 SC 2108, it was held:
"8. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
(emphasis supplied)
19. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, facts of the case in hand will be analyzed to ascertain as to whether prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused persons or not.
Role of accused no.2:-
20. It is undisputed fact that marriage between accused no. 1 and deceased had taken place on April 30,1998 and deceased had given birth to a male child on January 24, 1999. It is also undisputed fact that deceased started residing separately since September 19, 1999 at Baljeet SC No. 41/10 Page 23 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another Nagar, Delhi. In order to bring home the guilt of accused no. 2, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3.
(i) PW1 is the father of deceased and he in his examination-in- chief deposed that Geeta (since deceased) was harassed by her husband (accused no.1), her mother-in-law (accused no.2) and her father-in-law (Meher Singh, who had already died). He further deposed that deceased was turned out from her matrimonial house on September 13, 1999 in three clothes with her minor child. He further deposed that while leaving the matrimonial house, deceased asked for her jewelery, but her mother-in-law (accused no.2) and her father-in-law refused to return the same. He further deposed that deceased told him (PW1) on phone on December 10, 2002 in the night that accused Krishna with another lady had visited her at her Baljeet Nagar residence and had given threats to her. It is also undisputed fact that deceased had committed suicide on December 12, 2002. In other words, it is admitted case of the prosecution that she had committed suicide after 48 hours of the alleged threat. It means that deceased had 48 hours to pacify herself.
(ii) Assuming for the sake of arguments that the deposition of PW1 is true and correct. It means that PW1 has deposed only three instances qua accused no.2. First instance that accused no.2 along with other co-accused used to harass the deceased which not only pertained much prior to the incident in question but also quite vague in nature, thus, same is not relevant in any manner in the present matter. Similarly, second instance that had taken place on September 13, 1999 can not be a instigation to the deceased to commit suicide as the same had taken place more than three years ago. Assuming for the sake of arguments that accused no. 2 had visited the deceased on December 10, 2002. But before SC No. 41/10 Page 24 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another placing any reliance on his testimony, it is duty of the prosecution to establish what conversation had actually taken place between deceased and accused no. 2. No doubt PW1 deposed that deceased told him that accused no.2 along with another lady visited her house and had given threats to her. But surprisingly, PW1 failed to disclose what threat accused no. 2 had given to the deceased at that time, which instigated to such an extent that she decided to end her life. Thus, there is no cogent evidence to establish what conversation had taken place between accused no.2 and deceased when accused no.2 allegedly visited at her residence.
21. Now coming to the point as to whether there is any cogent evidence to establish that accused no. 2 had visited the house of deceased on December 10, 2002.
22. Indisputably, PW1 was residing at Panchkula, Chandigarh at the time of alleged visit of accused no.2. It is also undisputed fact that accused no. 2 has been residing at Sonipat, Haryana whereas deceased was residing at Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. Thus, all of them were residing at different places.
(i) Admittedly, PW1 failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that either he had received any call from deceased in the night of December 10, 2002 or he had made any such call. Similarly, prosecution has also failed to produce any evidence except the oral testimony of PW1 that deceased had made any such call to PW1. Needless to say that in the era of technology, it is not difficult to produce such a cogent and reliable evidence.
(ii) Further, it is admitted case of prosecution that deceased was SC No. 41/10 Page 25 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another residing in a rented accommodation and in the said premises other tenants were also residing. Despite that no evidence has been produced to establish that any such lady was seen with the deceased or in the premises either on December 10, 2002 or even thereafter. It is highly improbable that the visit of accused no.2 would be go unnoticed by occupants of the premises and locality.
(iii) Though PW1 failed to depose about the other lady who accompanied with accused no. 2, yet PW3 attempted to divulge her identity in her cross-examination by deposing that bua of accused no. 1 was residing at gali no. 8 of Baljeet Nagar. But simultaneously admitted in her next breadth that she never met with said bua. She never visited her at Baljeet Nagar and she did not know her address. Though PW3 denied a suggestion that accused no. 1 has three bua and all were residing at Sonipat, but swiftly added that at the time of incident, bua was residing at Baljeet Nagar. If it was so, question arises, who was residing there. PW3 further deposed that her brother was also residing at gali no. 1, Baljeet Nagar. Surprisingly , despite that prosecution failed to establish the identity of lady who allegedly accompanied with accused no. 2.
(iv) If any such lady accompanied with accused no. 2 and accused no. 2 had given any threat to the deceased, which had provoked the deceased to end her life, then the role of said lady was to be examined by the investigating agency but there is nothing in the charge-sheet, which may suggest that any such lady had ever visited the house of deceased.
(v) PW2 is star witness of the prosecution. As per case set up by prosecution, deceased had narrated about the threats to him while taking dinner on December 11, 2002. PW2 in his examination-in-chief SC No. 41/10 Page 26 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another deposed that they (PW2 and deceased) had a dinner around 8:00 PM/8:30 PM and when they were taking dinner, deceased told him that her-in-laws were torturing her and they were giving threats to her and also telling that they would forcibly take her child; she was weeping at that time and she was very much disturbed and she was repeatedly telling him that she was receiving threats on bus stand and in the hospital from the side of her-in- laws. Admittedly, PW2 did not depose that deceased had also told her about the alleged visit of her mother-in-law and another lady or that her mother-in-law had given any threat to her. As per the deposition of PW2, whatever threats were given to her, same were given either at the bus stop or in the hospital. He did not depose that any threat was given to her in her house at Baljeet Nagar. Thus, the testimony of PW1 does not get any corroboration about the alleged threat from PW2.
(vi) PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that neither accused persons nor their relatives had ever visited the rented house of deceased at Baljeet Nagar in his presence.
(vii) Admittedly, PW3, PW5 and PW6 have not uttered even a single word about the visit of accused no.2 at her rented accommodation and giving any threat to the deceased.
(viii) Taking into account the above discussion, I am of the view that prosecution has not only failed to prove that accused no.2 had visited the house of deceased either on December 10, 2002 or at any other point of time but prosecution also failed to prove that accused no.2 had given any threat to the deceased on December 10, 2002 or thereafter.
23. PW2 further admitted that Geeta had attended her office on SC No. 41/10 Page 27 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another December 11, 2002. It means that she had not taken the alleged threat seriously, if any. Had she been so disturbed because of the alleged threat that she decided to end her life, it is seldom to believe that deceased would have gone to her office on the very next day. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that she was feeling disturbed or perturbed in the office because of the alleged threat.
(i) In the regard the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court made in in Sanju v. State of M.P. AIR 2002 SC 1998 are quite relevant and reproduced 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. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July, 1998 ensued by quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27th July, 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had SC No. 41/10 Page 28 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another been used by the appellant on 25th July, 1998 droved the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July, 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July, 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July, 1998 would itself clearly pointed out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25th July, 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below."
(emphasis supplied)
(ii) In view of the above judgment, I am of the view that deceased had enough time to think over and reflect, therefore, it can not be said that the alleged visit or threat, which prosecution has otherwise failed to prove had any direct result to the decision of the deceased to end her life.
24. Considering the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused no.2.
25. Before adverting to the role of accused no.1, I deem it appropriate to discuss the various complaints lodged by the deceased.
26. As per prosecution case, Geeta had lodged a DD No. 33 at PS Patel Nagar on January 4, 2001 alleging that her husband and her in-
SC No. 41/10 Page 29 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another laws had given threat to her that if she uttered any word against them in the Court or that she had not taken the court case back, he would get her eliminated and would get her son kidnapped. Said DD is marked Ex. PW1/A. Perusal of the said DD reveals that the words "Pati Rajesh, Saas Krishna" were inserted later on and the insertion does not bear any initial of author of this document. Perusal of the said DD reveals that initially it was lodged against Meher Singh but to give a colour that threat was given by all accused, name of Rajesh and Krishna were also added and this fact also clear from the contents of the said document as all the sentences end with singular, which proves that it was lodged against one person and not against plural persons. This fact is further clear from the words used in the said complaint for instance "Aaj Bus Stand Shadipur Depot par mila. "Tere bachhe ko uthva dunga". "Aur kai tehre ki dhamki dekar chala gaya."
(i) During his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that Ex. PW1/A was neither prepared in his presence nor it bears his signature and further deposed that since he had not seen the original of Ex. PW1/A, he can not say whether portion A to A i.e. "pati Rajesh, Saas Krishna" were inserted subsequently or not. During trial, prosecution failed to produce the original DD No. 33, thus prosecution has failed to establish that the words "Pati Rajesh, Saas Krishna" were not added later on. In these circumstances, DD No. 33 is not relevant to bring home the guilt of present accused as whatever allegations are alleged in the said DD are against the deceased accused Meher Singh and not against the present accused.
(ii) As per prosecution version, deceased had made a complaint (Ex. PW1/B) to in-charge police post LNJP on June, 20, 2002 that her husband Rajesh had given a threat to her that if she did not return the son to him within 10 days, he would kill her, thus requested to take action SC No. 41/10 Page 30 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another against him. Firstly, the said complaint was lodged on June 20, 2002 i.e. much prior to committing the suicide, thus the said complaint has no nexus between the alleged threat and suicide committed by the deceased. Further, said complaint shows that the deceased was not coward but a daring lady who knew about her rights, accordingly, she lodged the complaint against her husband on the very same day.
(iii) Further, prosecution also relied upon the DD No. 14A dated September 2000 (Ex. PW1/C). The said DD was lodged by PW1 when some trivial incident had taken place at CAW cell between both the families. To my mind, said DD is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to prove the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC as said incident has no proximate nexus to the commission of suicide.
(iv) Prosecution has also relied upon the complaint dated April 13, 2002 (Ex.PW1/D), which was lodged by deceased before the Commissioner of Police wherein she made a prayer to the Commissioner of Police that no heed should be given on the complaints lodged by her husband and father-in-law and she also prayed that if in future any complaint is made by them then in order to save her relatives no action should be taken on their complaints. It is pertinent to state that both the families used to make complaints against each other. Even SI Rajinder Singh and deceased had made complaints against Meher Singh about his property. Similarly Meher Singh also made some complaints against SI Rajinder Singh and deceased and even made a request to keep his land line phone under observation as he was receiving threat on his phone from deceased and in this regard he had also lodged a complaint at Sonipat. Coming back to Ex. PW1/D, I am of the view that the said complaint is also SC No. 41/10 Page 31 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another not relevant to prove the guilt of accused persons under Section 306 IPC as there is no proximate nexus between the incident and the said complaint.
(v) Again on July 18, 2002 deceased had made a complaint against Meher Singh and other and highlighted the properties acquired by Meher Singh and asked from the Commissioner of Police why the police had not taken any action on her complaints and why she was humiliated by in-charge R.C. Dahiya and SHO Tilak Marg. Since, this complaint was also lodged much prior to the incident in question, in my view said complaint is also not relevant to connect the accused with the incident.
(vi) As already observed that SI Rajender Singh a close relative of PW1 also lodged a complaint in vigilance department against deceased accused Meher Singh wherein he highlighted the properties acquired by him and the said complaint is Ex. DW5/A. In the said complaint it is stated that due to his personal gain, SI Meher Singh had ruined the marital life of his son Rajesh Kumar. Similarly, deceased in her complaint Ex. PW1/D referred to her husband Rajesh as "Mere pati dabbu kisam ke ve berojgar hai". (She considered her husband coward and unemployed). This only shows that the main grievance of deceased and his family was against Meher Singh and not against Rajesh.
27. From the above discussion, it becomes crystal clear that all the above complaints allegedly lodged by the deceased or her father are not relevant to connect the accused persons for the unfortunate death of the deceased.
Role of accused no. 1:
SC No. 41/10 Page 32 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
28. PW1 had deposed certain facts against accused no.1. Firstly, he deposed that on April 22, 2000, accused no. 1 along with 3-4 young persons came to G.B. Pant Hospital in a vehicle to abduct the deceased forcibly and Geeta had lodged a complaint at Police Post G.B. Pant Hospital and then in CAW Cell, thereafter an FIR No. 479/2000 under Section 498A/406 IPC was registered against accused no.1. Admittedly, the alleged incident had not taken place in the presence of PW1, thus whatever information he had received about the alleged incident, he must have either received from deceased or from the her colleagues. Admittedly, prosecution has not examined any staff of hospital to establish that any such incident had taken place. Surprisingly, though deceased in her complaint Ex. PW1/D alleged that the said attempt was failed due to the intervention of her maternal uncle Dhanpat, who was residing at Baljeet Nagar and the hospital staff, but prosecution did not deem it appropriate to bring either of them in the witness box. It means that prosecution has withheld the best evidence without any just and reasonable ground. Further, it is admitted case of prosecution that no FIR was register about the abduction or attempt to abduction of the said incident. Nor deceased had lodged any such protest with the police. On her complaint, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498A/406 IPC was registered, which casts a serious doubt that accused no. 1 had made any attempt to abduct the deceased. Moreover, the said incident had taken place in April 2000 i.e. about more than two years ago, thus said incident can not instigate the deceased to end her life in any manner. Moreover, PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that he had not disclosed about the said incident in his statement before SDM but swiftly added that he had not disclosed the said incident because he did not deem it appropriate to disclose the same at that time as separate FIR had already been lodged of that incident. It only shows that PW1 also did not consider that the said incident could provoke the SC No. 41/10 Page 33 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another deceased in any manner to commit suicide.
(i) PW1 further deposed that on March 14, 2001 they appeared before the Court of Sh. L.D. Malik, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge for the purpose of reconciliation and when they came out from the Court, accused Meher Singh and Rajesh had assaulted the deceased and accused Meher Singh had even tried to guillotine Geeta with the help of her Chunni. Accordingly, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 341/506 IPC was registered against the accused persons on her complaint filed under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. Assuming for the sake of arguments that any such incident had taken place, but prosecution failed to convince the Court how the said incident had provoked the deceased on December 12, 2002 to end her life. Admittedly, deceased had sufficient time to come out from the trauma of said incident. Admittedly, both the parties had launched multiple litigations against each other. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that the said incident had provoked the deceased in any manner to commit suicide.
(ii) PW1 further deposed that on November 26, 2002 accused Rajesh and Meher Singh came to G.B. Pant Hospital and had given threats to Geeta that she should not utter a word against them in the Court otherwise they would get her killed with her son. He further deposed that Geeta was quite perturbed upon this and narrated the incident to PW1 when she visited her parents house on November 28, 2002. He further deposed that they had tried to pacify her and sent her back to Delhi on December 1, 2002. Admittedly, the said incident had not taken place in the presence of PW1. Prosecution has not examined any hospital staff to prove the nature of threat. Moreover, PW1 himself deposed that he had pacified the deceased and sent her to Delhi. Admittedly, deceased had attended her SC No. 41/10 Page 34 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another office after December 1, 2002. It only means that the said incident had not perturbed the deceased to such an extent that she may decide to commit suicide. Though it is admitted case of prosecution that PW2 used to visit the deceased regularly and she used to share her weal and woe with him, yet PW2 in his cross-examination admitted that deceased had never told him about the incident that had taken place on 26.11.2002, 27.11.2002, 28.11.2002 and 01.12.2002. This only indicates that deceased had not taken the said incidents seriously otherwise she would have shared the same with her only well-wisher, who used to spend sufficient time with her.
(iii) All other allegations against accused no. 1 are either vague in nature or prior to September 13, 1999 when she started living separately, thus, to my mind the deposition of PW1 about the said incidents is not relevant to connect the accused persons with the incident in question.
29. PW1, in his examination-in-chief deposed that accused Rajesh had made a demand of scooter at the instigation of his father Meher Singh. In his cross-examination, he admitted that accused no. 1 had filed a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act at Sonipat wherein Geeta filed a reply stating that she was ready to live with accused Rajesh in Delhi but not at Sonipat in her matrimonial house. But swiftly he added that Geeta had also disclosed that she had threat from the accused persons and she had a job in Delhi and having one minor son, thus, she was interested to live with her husband in Delhi. The latter portion of testimony of PW1 is paradox because if deceased had any threat from accused Rajesh why she was willing to reside with him in Delhi. PW2 in his cross- examination also admitted that deceased intended to live separately with accused Rajesh in Delhi. In her complaint Ex. PW1/D, deceased alleged that her husband was a coward and unemployed. From the above, it SC No. 41/10 Page 35 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another becomes explicit that accused Rajesh was unemployed and coward type person whereas deceased was government employee as she was working as Pharmacist in G.B. Pant Hospital, thus, she wanted to live separately along with her husband in Delhi. But probably, parents of accused Rajesh were not ready to this and due to his unemployment and cowardice attitude, he was not able to go against the wishes of his family. Had the accused Rajesh tortured the deceased to such an extent or that he intended to kill her, deceased would have never expressed her willingness to live with the accused separately in Delhi.
30. Now coming to the events that had taken place on December 12, 2002.
31. It admitted case of prosecution that deceased was alone in the house at the time of incident and prior to the incident, she was with PW2.
(i) PW2 in his examination-in-chief deposed that he reached the house of deceased at about 6:00 PM on December 11, 2002 and remained there till 10:00 PM, thus, he is the person who spent about 4 hours with deceased prior to her suicide. He further deposed that they (he and deceased) had dinner between 8:00 PM to 8:30 PM and at that time deceased told him that her-in-laws were torturing her and they were giving threats to her that they would forcibly take her child. He further deposed that at that time she was weeping and she was very much disturbed as she repeatedly told him that she was receiving threats at bus stand and in the hospital. On the basis of the said deposition, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the threats given by the accused persons in past were hovering in her mind, which provoked her to commit suicide. But to my SC No. 41/10 Page 36 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another mind the said contention is without any basis and this fact will clear from the testimony of PW2 itself.
(ii) Indisputably, PW2 left from her house between 10:00 PM to 10:15 PM. PW2 also deposed that deceased also asked him to go to Chandigarh along with a sum of ` 30,000/- and deposit the said amount along with allotment form in the office of Haryana Urban Development Authority and also asked him to collect the amount of ` 30,000/- and allotment form from her in the morning. He further deposed that he had to leave for Chandigarh next morning between 5:00 AM to 6:00AM. Accordingly, he reached the house of deceased on December 12, 2002 at about 5:00 AM and found her hanging with ceiling fan with the help of chunni.
(iii) If there is any substance in the testimony of PW2, it means prosecution case is that deceased had asked PW2 to go to the office of HUDA to deposit allotment form and ` 30,000/- and further asked him to collect the same from her in the morning. It means that deceased had not lost the equilibrium of her mind when she told PW2 about the threats of her- in-laws. Rather, she was very much concerned about her future and in order to secure her future, she decided to apply in HUDA and for that purpose she asked PW2 to come early morning and collect ` 30,000/- and allotment form/application form. Admittedly, there is no scintilla of evidence to show that after 10:00 PM, any of the accused either met with the deceased personally or contacted her on phone. Thus, it is seldom to believe that a girl who was planning to invest in HUDA and asked PW2 at about 10:00 PM on December 11, 2002 to come in the early morning to collect amount and form, would commit suicide during the intervening night of December 11, 2002 to December 12, 2002 on the basis of threats SC No. 41/10 Page 37 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another allegedly given by her-in-laws much prior to the incident.
(iv) But the above testimony of PW2 is not beyond the sphere of doubt. If deceased asked PW2 to go to Chandigarh in the next morning to deposit ` 30,000/- and allotment/application form in HUDA and if PW2 left from her house between 10:00 PM to 10:15 PM, why the deceased had not given the amount and form to PW2 in the night itself; and why she asked him to come in the early morning to collect the same from her house. Similarly, why PW2 did not ask his sister to give the same to him in the night itself, so that he could leave for Chandigarh in the morning from his own house. Admittedly, neither PW2 handed over the said form and cash amount to the police nor police found the same from her house. Does it mean that PW2 has manufactured a false story to justify his presence in the house of deceased in the early morning?
(v) Further, even the conduct of PW2 was not natural. In his examination-in-chief, PW2 admitted that he reached the house of deceased on December 12, 2002 at about 5:00 AM. But he informed the police only at about 7:30 AM. Thus, he took about two and half hours to inform the police and he failed to give any reasonable explanation about the said delay. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he informed the neighbour Satnam Singh (PW6) within 5-10 minutes after getting down Geeta from ceiling fan. But PW6 did not corroborate his testimony as PW6 deposed that PW2 came to his house at about 6:00 AM. It means that PW2 had taken about one hour even to inform the next door neighbour. Further, it is unbelievable that PW2 could of his own remove the deceased from ceiling fan within 5-10 minutes. Needless to say that first reaction of an ordinary person would be to raise hue and cry but he raised hue and cry only after getting down deceased from ceiling fan.
SC No. 41/10 Page 38 of 41State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another
(vi) Perusal of DD No. 34A (Ex.PW7/C) proves that he had made a call to PS Patel Nagar. Needless to say that ordinarily in such circumstances a person makes a call at 100 number and not at police station as ordinarily no person keeps the telephone number of local police station with him. But surprisingly PW2 did not call at 100 number; rather he made a call at local police station. It is pertinent to state that close relative of PW2 was also working in Delhi Police at that time. Does it mean that he had made a call at PS Patel Nagar after due deliberation and consultation?
(vii) Though PW2 claimed that he did not stay with deceased in night and went to the house of his friend Ramesh at Kamla Market, yet during trial prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to corroborate his version. During trial, prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that any person had either seen PW2 to leave from the house of deceased on December 11, 2002 in the night or saw him to come in the early morning at about 5:00 AM. It means that there is no evidence on record to establish that PW2 had left from the house of deceased in the night of December 11, 2002.
(vii) It is pertinent to state that investigating agency had filed a closure report stating that PW2 had illicit relations with deceased and due to that reason deceased had committed suicide. In these circumstances, there was heavy burden on the prosecution to establish that there was no such relations between deceased and PW2, thus prosecution was under
obligation to prove beyond doubt that PW2 did not stay in night with the deceased but prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in this regard. To hold the accused liable for the death of deceased, it is essential for the Court to know what exactly had happened on the day of occurrence. In SC No. 41/10 Page 39 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another Ramesh Kumar v. Chhattisgarh (supra), Apex Court also observed that what happened on the date of occurrence is very material for the purpose of recording a finding on the question of abetment. But unfortunately during trial, prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence, which may show what exactly had happened during the intervening night of December 11, 2002 and December 12, 2002. If PW2 had actually left from her house at about 10 PM/10:15 PM, it means that something must have happened with the deceased, which instigated her to end her life. But prosecution has failed to prove the same during trial. As already said, neither of the accused visited the house of deceased during the said period, thus, it can not be said that after leaving PW2, they had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. At the cost of repetition it is pertinent to state that even prosecution has failed to prove that accused no. 2 visited the house of deceased on December 10, 2002.
32. Now coming to the judgments relied upon by the counsel for complainant and supported by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have gone through all the judgments carefully. No one can dispute the proposition of law laid down in the said judgments. But it is also true that the facts involved in the said judgments are totally different from the facts of the case in hand. It is settled principle of law that courts are supposed to apply the settled proposition of law in the facts and circumstances of a case. It is also settled law that in criminal law one change in the facts of a case can bring sea change in the outcome of the case. In all the cases cited by prosecution side, victim had committed suicide within the four corners of her matrimonial house whereas in the instant case deceased was living separately for the last more than three years. Besides that there are other substantial different facts in the said cases. Accordingly, I am of the view that the judgments relied upon by the prosecution are not helpful SC No. 41/10 Page 40 of 41 State Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another to the prosecution to connect either of accused persons with the unfortunate incident of suicide.
33. Taking into account the above discussion, I am of considered opinion that prosecution has also failed to connect the accused no. 1 with the suicide of deceased Geeta Rani.
Conclusion:
34. Mulling over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused no. 2 Krishna Devi and also failed to bring home the guilt of accused no.1 Rajesh beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 IPC, thus, I hereby acquit both the accused persons thereunder.
Announced in the open Court On this 11th day of December 2013 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 CENTRAL/THC, DELHI.
SC No. 41/10 Page 41 of 41