Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Meena And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 16 July, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 321/2014
1. Meena daughter of Shri Pyarelal, W/o Shri Seeshram, aged
about 27 years, B/c Jat, R/o Lakshmangarh, District Sikar
(Rajasthan)
2. Subhash, S/o Shri Harlal Singh, aged about 25 years, B/c Jat,
R/o Basni, Police Station Lakshmangarh, District Sikar
(Rajasthan)
(Both are presently lodged in District Jail at Jhunjhunu)
----Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Sahni with Mr. R.M. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Judgment 16/07/2019 Appellants had faced trial in FIR No. 64 dated 25.04.2010 registered at police station Mukundgarh, District Jhunjhunu under Sections 302 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').
FIR was lodged at the instance of Ramdev Singh father of deceased Seeshram. As per the FIR, Seeshram was married to appellant Meena about six years prior to the incident. Complainant came to know that appellant Meena had developed illicit relations with appellant Subhash. Complainant party made strenuous efforts to persuade appellant Meena to leave appellant Subhash. (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:36:16 PM)
(2 of 7) [CRLA-321/2014] However, appellant Meena did not agree to forego her relationship with appellant Subhash. On 22.04.2010, Seeshram brought appellant Meena from Signore to his house. On the same day at night, appellant Meena left for Gudhapani. On the next morning, complainant had gone to Gudhapani to lodge a report against appellant Meena. Appellant Meena was taken by Pyarelal and Pradeep Jhajhadiya to Togdakala. On 24.04.2010, Seeshram was called to Togda by appellant Meena. Seeshram left at 9.00 a.m. and complainant came to know about 5.00/6.00 p.m. that Seeshram had been poisoned to death.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants under Section 306, 497, 328/511 and 120-B IPC.
Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 306 and 328/511 IPC. On receipt of report from Central Forensic Science Laboratory that Seeshram had died on account of endosulfan poisoning charges were again framed against appellant Meena under Section 302/120-B IPC. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 26 witnesses. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. Appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. Appellants have been falsely involved in this case. In-fact, initial report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory (Exhibit D-8) was that no poison had been detected in the visceras of the deceased. Later (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:36:16 PM) (3 of 7) [CRLA-321/2014] report Exhibit-58, by Central Forensic Science Laboratory shows positive tests of presence of endosulfan in the visceras of the deceased. Report Exhibit-58 was liable to be discarded.
Learned State counsel who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that prosecution had been successful in establishing its case. As per Exhibit P-58, deceased had died on account of endosulfan poisoning. Deceased had been administered insecticide while he had gone to the maternal grand uncles' house of appellant Meena.
Present case relates to death of Seeshram on account of endosulfan poisoning. Seeshram was taken to the hospital by Pradeep, maternal uncle of appellant Meena. As per Exhibit P-52, it was a case of poisoning. PW-18 Dr. Nawal Kishore Saini has proved Exhibit P-52 and deposed that on 24.04.2010 Seeshram had been brought to C.H.C. Nawalgarh for treatment but he had referred the patient to A.K. Hospital. Hence, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of report Exhibit P-58 given by Central Forensic Science Laboratory. Report Exhibit D-8 fails to advance the case of the appellant as it stands superceded by report Exhibit P-58. As per report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit P-58 it was a case of endosulfan poisoning.
The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether, Seeshram had himself consumed the insecticide or he had been administered insecticide by the appellants.
Exhibit-P-6 is the postmortem report of deceased Seeshram. A perusal of the same reveals that there was no external mark of injury on the person of the deceased. Although, in the Panchnama Exhibit-P-3, it was mentioned that there were external injuries on the person of the deceased. However, the Panchnama Exhibit-P-3 (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:36:16 PM) (4 of 7) [CRLA-321/2014] is belied by the postmortem examination report to the effect that the deceased had suffered any external injury.
Hence, it cannot be said that the deceased had been forcibly administered the insecticide-in-question. Thus, it can be said that the deceased had himself consumed the insecticide endosulfan.
The next question that requires consideration is as to whether, appellants had abetted suicide committed by the deceased.
As per Section 306 IPC, 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, and shall also be liable to fine.
As per the prosecution story, appellants were having illicit relations. Seeshram objected to the same but appellant Meena did not agree to forego her relationship with appellant Subhash. In this regard, statement of complainant is relevant. Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2 has deposed that the appellants were having illicit relationship. Seeshram had been persuading appellant Meena to forego her relationship with appellant Subhash but she did not agree to the same. PW-9 Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased has also corroborated the statement of the complainant in this regard.
As per PW-2 and PW-9, Seeshram had brought appellant Meena to the matrimonial home from her parental house on 22.04.2010. However, at night, appellant Meena again left the house.
PW-12 Ramniwas deposed that on 23.04.2010, during the night, at about 2.00/3.00 a.m. appellant Meena alongwith the child in her lap had come to the police station and had informed (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:36:16 PM) (5 of 7) [CRLA-321/2014] that her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law had given beatings to her and had thrown her out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, family members of appellant Meena as well as her in- laws' family were called to the police station. On enquiry, husband of appellant Meena stated that his wife was having illicit relations with appellant Subhash and wanted to perform marriage with him. At night time, appellant Meena had left the matrimonial home alongwith appellant Subhash and they had tried to kill him by serving some poisonous substance in milk. Seeshram gave a complaint in writing in this regard. Enquiry was made from father of appellant Meena and he stated that his daughter had threatened him that they should get effected her divorce from Seeshram and her marriage be performed with appellant Subhash. Father of appellant Meena also stated that while he was coming to the police station, Subhash had called him and had threatened him that they should get appellant Meena divorced from Seeshram, otherwise he would kill him. Ramdev, father of Seeshram also gave a complaint in writing. While they were in the police station, appellant Meena received a called on mobile phone and on enquiry, she informed that she had received the call from appellant Subhash. Then, he took the mobile phone from appellant Meena but it was not having any SIM as the same has taken out by appellant Meena. When the said persons after due consultations were leaving the police station, he gave the mobile phone to Pradeep (uncle of appellant Meena).
Thus, from the testimony of PW-12, it transpires that appellant Meena had reached the police station Gudha Gorji at night at about 2.00/3.00 a.m. on 23.04.2010 and thereafter, her parental family as well as her in-laws' family were called to the (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:36:16 PM) (6 of 7) [CRLA-321/2014] police station. This shows that there was on-going dispute between appellant Meena and her husband with regard to her relationship with appellant Subhash.
Father as well as father-in-law of appellant Meena had moved complaints to the police with regard to her illicit relationship with Subhash. The said complaints were moved on 23.04.2010. Father of appellant Meena stated in the complaint to the police that appellant Subhash had been threatening him that he should get a divorce of his daughter from Seeshram and then, he should perform her marriage with him.
On 24.04.2010, Seeshram had gone to the house of Pradeep, maternal uncle of appellant Meena with a view to bring back appellant Meena to the matrimonial home. Apparently, there was some altercation between appellant Meena and the deceased with regard to her relationship with appellant Subhash which instigated/provoked Seeshram to consume poison. Seeshram must have been fed up due to illicit relations of his wife with appellant Subhash. Seeshram had been making various efforts to bring back his wife to the matrimonial home but both the appellants were adamant to continue their relationship. Due to this reason, Seeshram took poison to kill himself. Hence, it can be said that the appellants had abetted Seeshram to commit suicide. Deceased was taken to Nawalgarh Hospital by uncle of appellant Meena. If appellants had administered poison to the deceased then there was no occasion for the uncle of appellant Meena to have taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment.
Learned trial Court has erred in ordering the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/120-B IPC, whereas, appellants (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:36:16 PM) (7 of 7) [CRLA-321/2014] were liable to be convicted qua offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
Accordingly, conviction and sentence of appellant Meena under Section 302 and appellant Subhash under Section 302 read with Section 120-B are set aside. Appellants are held guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC and are convicted thereunder. Appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and shall pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, appellants shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (SABINA)J.
Sudha/13
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:36:16 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)