Delhi District Court
State vs . Guddu Chaudhary on 22 February, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B. R. KEDIA ; A.S.J.
TIS HAZARI COURTS ; DELHI
State Vs. Guddu Chaudhary
S/o Shri Mithlesh Chaudhary
R/o Village Bachauta,P.S. Morkahi
Distt- Khagaria, Bihar
S.C. NO. 67/07
FIR NO. 250/06
P.S. Nabi Karim
U/Sec. 498A/ 306 IPC
Date of institution 07-08-2007
Arguments heard on 22-02-2008
Judgment delivered on 22-02-2008
J U D G M E N T :-
Accused Guddu Chaudhary has been charge sheeted for facing trial in a case bearing FIR NO. 250/06, for offence punishable 498A/306 IPC as registered at P.S. Nabi Karim, Delhi on the basic allegation of exercising cruelty and abetting the commission of suicide of his wife Lalita as a result of which on 27.8.2006 at about 11.30 pm at House No. AC-22, Ground Floor, Gali Tel Mill Wali, Nabi Karim 2 Delhi, said Lalita got herself burnt by pouring kerosene oil and lightning and ultimately she expired on 28.8.2006 at LNJP Hospital.
2. The precise case of the prosecution as found reflected from the charge sheet is that on dt. 28.8.2006 at about 12.15 am (night) on receipt of copy of D.D. NO. 3A Ex.PW9/A by S.I. Pradeep Kumar, he alongwith Ct. Atma Ram reached the spot at H.NO. AC-22, Gali Tel Wali, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj, Delhi and was informed that one lady, namely, Smt. Lalita in burning condition was removed to L.N.J.P. Hospital by P.C.R. Police. In the mean time HC Udayvir who met SI Pradeep near the spot was left at the spot to guard the spot. Thereafter, S.I. Pradeep Kumar alongwith Ct. Atma Ram reached L.N.J.P. Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured Smt. Lalita and the injured was opined by the concerned doctor 'Fit for Statement'. Thereafter SI Pradeep Kumar in the presence of Duty Doctor Shri Girish Shastri recorded the statement of injured Smt. Lalita which is Ex.PW9/B. On making endorsement Ex.PW9/C on 3 said statement Ex.PW9/B FIR copy of which is Ex.PW9/D was got registered. As the incident had taken place within 7 years of marriage of injured Lalita SI Pradeep Kumar called for SDM, Pahar Ganj who reached the Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Smt. Lalita, which is EX. PW-9/F. After the registration of the case further investigation was taken up by Inspector Ram Avtar Yadav, Additional SHO, Police Station Nabi Karim. During the course of the investigation, crime team visited the spot, photograph of the spot were taken, partly burnt pieces of sari, blouse, bra and one match box, one kerosene oil stove etc. were seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A, site plan Ex.PW11/C was prepared. As on 28-8-2006, information regarding the death of Lalita was received vide DD no.13A Ex.PW11/D, SDM Paharganj was informed in this respect. SDM recorded statement of Raj Kumar Chaudhary, father of the deceased Ex.PW2/B and statement of Uttam Kumar, Jija of deceased Ex.PW1/B. Inquest proceedings was got conducted by the SDM, post mortum was got conducted vide 4 P.M. Report Ex.PW10/A and thereafter, dead body was delivered to the relative of deceased. Accused was found absconding and ultimately was arrested from his native village on 28-4-2007 vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/L. Thereafter his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW11/K and ultimately on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of concerned Ld. MM, who after compliance with requirement U/S 207 Cr.P.C. was pleased to commit the case to the court of sessions. Thereafter, matter was assigned to this court for trial.
3. On hearing both the sides on the point of charge vide order dt. 30.8.07, charge for the offence punishable U/S 498A/306 IPC was framed against this accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution in support of its case got examined 12 prosecution witnesses, namely, Sh. Uttam Kumar, Jija 5 of deceased as PW1 (who turned hostile), Raj Kumar Chaudhary, father of the deceased as PW2 (who turned hostile), Dharmender, cousin brother of deceased (who turned hostile) as PW3, Smt. Shanti, mother of the deceased (who turned hostile) as PW4, Smt. Maya, Landlady of the deceased (who turned hostile) as PW5, Sachin S/o the landlady of the deceased (who turned hostile) as PW6, Gopal Prasad Jaiswal, Mausa of the deceased (who turned hostile) as PW7, Mithlesh Chaudhary, father of the accused (who turned hostile) as PW8, SI Pradeep Kumar, who on the receipt of DD no.3A reached the spot and thereafter, at JPN hospital and recorded the statement of injured Lalita, on the basis of which got registered the FIR and joined investigation with the IO, as PW9, Dr. Sunil, who conducted Post Mortum on the dead body of the deceased, as PW10 and Inspector Ram Avtar Yadav, IO as PW11 and Dr. Girish Shastri, who has given certificate of fitness of Lalita and was present at the time of recording her statement Ex.PW9/B has been examined as PW12.
6
5. After examination of aforesaid 12 prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused, U/S 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, in which the accused denied the allegation of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, accused has not led any evidence in his defence.
6. I have heard Ms.Chitra Mal, Advocate, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused and Ld. A.P.P. for the State and perused the relevant record.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused that this accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and hence he deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Amicus Curiae that even as per the statement of the deceased Lalita as recorded by Police, which is EX. PW-9/B and as recorded by concerned SDM which is Ex.PW9/F, no case U/S 498A/306 IPC is made out against the accused and hence this accused deserves to be acquitted. It is 7 further added by Ld. Amicus Curiae that all the material PWs namely PW1 Uttam Kumar, Jija of the deceased, PW2 Raj Kumar Chaudhary, father of the deceased, PW3 Dharmender, cousin brother of the deceased, PW4 Smt. Shanti, mother of the deceased, PW5 Smt. Maya, landlady of the deceased, PW6 Sachin son of landlady of the deceased, PW7 Gopal Prasad Jaiswal Mausa of deceased, and PW8 Mithlesh Chaudhary, father of the accused have not deposed anything as against this accused by turning hostile and hence the accused deserves to be acquitted.
8. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution by examining aforesaid 12 prosecution witnesses have successfully established its case for the charged offence as against accused and he deserve to be convicted accordingly. It is further added by Ld. APP that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the deceased as recorded before Ld. S.D.M., which is EX. PW- 9/F and as recorded by police which is Ex.PW9/B and the same 8 clearly establish the case of the prosecution as against the accused and hence he deserve to be convicted for the charged offence. It is, thus, urged by Ld. APP that the accused deserve to be convicted for the charge offence for causing cruelty and abetting for commission of suicide by the deceased Smt. Lalita.
9. From the perusal of the deposition of PW-9 SI Pradeep Kumar, initial I.O., it is reflected that on 28.8.2006 at about 12.15 am (night) on receipt of copy of DD No. 3A Ex.PW9/A, he alongwith Ct. Atma Ram reached the spot at House No. AC-22, Gali Tel Wali, Ram Nagar, Pahar Ganj and on being informed that injured Lalita had already been removed to LNJP reached there and found the injured Smt. Lalita admitted in J.P.N. Hospital in burnt condition. Thereafter he recorded statement of injured Lalita in the presence of Dr. Girish Shastri which is Ex.PW9/B. PW11/IO Inspector Ram Avtar Yadav also deposed that SDM Pahar Ganj Shri Bishan Chand reached the Hospital and recorded the statement of Lalita which is Ex.PW9/F. 9 However, from the perusal of both the said statement of Lalita as recorded by PW9 SI Pradeep Kumar at about 1.30 am which is EX.PW9/B and as recorded by the SDM at about 3.40 am which is Ex.PW9/F are found to be similar word to word and the same has been also admitted by PW9 in his cross examination and the same creates suspicion on the contents of the said statement. Further more, from the perusal of the said statement of the deceased Lalita which are Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/F, it is reflected that she had been residing at the given address for last about two months as tenant along with her husband and her husband is a rickshaw pullar. She was married to Guddu Chaudhary 6-7 years back and was having two children out of which her elder daughter aged about 5 years was residing in native village and younger daughter aged about 1 year was residing with her. She had come to Delhi two months back and her husband used to quarrel with her and give beatings to her after taking liquor. On that day, 27-8-2006 at about 11.30 pm, her husband after taking liquor quarreled with her and gave beatings to 10 her on which out of anger she poured kerosene oil from the stove and lighted herself. Her husband ran away and on hearing her scream, some neighbour rang the police who reached there and removed her to the Hospital.
There is nothing on record to show that the accused had intended that the deceased Lalita should commit suicide or knew that she was likely to commit suicide. It appears to be an independent act of the deceased herself out of her own emotions and impulsion as entertained by her at that time. There is also nothing on record to establish that the accused had goaded or incited or stimulated his wife Lalita to commit suicide by burning herself.
10. Let us see if, the accused can be held liable for offence punishable U/S 306 IPC for abetting for commission of suicide by the deceased Smt. Lalita? In the case reported as AIR 1975 S.C. 175 in Para-6 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
"Thus, in order to constitute 11 abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. ......
It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107."
In the case reported as 2000(2) JCC Delhi 297, "Lakshmi & Anr. Vs. State" while dealing with the case U/S 306 IPC it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court as under :-
5. Section 306 I.P.C. provides for abetment of suicide and reads :-12
"If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Abetment has been defined in Section 107 I.P.C. to mean that :-
"A person abets the doing of a thing, who -
Firstly. - 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 place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and 13 in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly. - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
6. Abetment is thus constituted (1) by instigating a person to commit an offence, or (2) by engaging in a conspiracy to commit it, or (3) by intentionally aiding a person to commit it.
7. "In Emperor Vs. Amiruddin Solebhoy AIR 1923 Bombay 44", the meaning of the word "instigate" has been explained as under :-
"A person is said to instigate another to act when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, Whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragements."
8. In Rishi Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 14 1988 (1) All India Criminal Law Reports 615, a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has also explained the meaning of the word "instigate" as under :-
"The word "instigate" literally means to goad, urge forward, to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. A person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement."
9. Thus, in the context of the offence the word "instigate" would mean to suggest, provoke, incite or encourage or stimulate to do an act or to urge forward.
10. "Conspiracy" consists in a combination and agreement by persons to do some illegal act or to effect a legal purpose by 15 means. In order to constitute the offence of abetment by conspiracy, there mus be a combining together of two or more persons in the conspiracy and an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing.
11. And a person abets by aiding when by any act done, either prior to, or at the time of, commission of an act, he intends to facilitate and does in fact facilitate the commission thereof.
12. In order to constitute abetment by aiding, the abettor must be shown to have "intentionally" aided the commission of the crime (Sri Ram Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC
175)
14. Abetment involves active complicity 16 on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence and it is of the essence of the crime of abetment that the abettor should substantially assist towards the commission of the offence. In other words, in order to convict a person of abetting the commission of a crime, it is necessary to connect him with those steps in the transaction which are criminal. It is not the case of the prosecution that when the deceased had committed suicide, the accused were present at the place of incident. There is no material, direct or indirect, to show that the accused had either instigated or conspired or aided the deceased in committing the suicide at that time. And it could not be said that the accused persons had abetted the suicide. On the material available no offence punishable under section 306/34 IPC is made out against either of the accused.
17
In 2002 (2) JCC 466 (Delhi), "Ms. Taposhi Chakervarti Vs. State" while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306/498A IPC, it was observed by our Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para - 6 as under :-
"The law on the subject, to my mind, is that the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commissioning of the crime and mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee, unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime, intentionally aiding and, therefore, active complicity is the gist of offence of abetment under the third 18 paragraph of Section 107, IPC, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram & Anr. Vs State of U.P. AIR 1975 SC 175. It is, however, difficult to lay down the exact acts of commission or omission which amount to abetment depending upon facts of the each case but the principles have already been laid down in precedents."
In a recent case reported as 2007 IV (AD) Delhi, 498, Prashant Manchanda Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Anr." while dealing with case relating to Sec. 306 IPC, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 11 as under :-
"In order to attract Section 306 IPC, the person to abet commission of suicide must do an overt act or some act which instigates the victim to commit suicide. The act so performed must be immediate cause of the suicide. Here, in this case, Commissioner of 19 Police had suspended the deceased Inspector on 12th October, 2004. The deceased Inspector committed suicide exactly after two years. The suspension was done by the Commissioner of Police as an official act which he was authorized to do under law. Every head of the department is supposed to initiate disciplinary action against subordinates when commission or omission of such acts are brought to his notice which prima facie show dereliction of duty or malafide actions."
Further more, in a recent case reported as 2007 V AD (S.C.) 665, "Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors" it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under :-
12. Similarly, in Mahendera Singh & Anr. Vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 731, it was observed by this Court that it is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel 20 or in the spur of the moment or in anger cannot be treated as constituting mens rea. In that case the appellant said to the deceased "to go and die". As a result of such utterance, the deceased went and committed suicide.
However, the Supreme Court observed that no offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC was made out because there was no element of mens rea.
13. In "Randhir Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab" 2004 (3) SCC 129, it was observed that "more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC"
14. In the same decision it was observed following the decision in "State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal 1994 (1) SCC 73" that :-
21
"The courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial 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 transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences 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."
15.In our opinion the view taken by the High 22 Court is correct. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is often harassed by the husband or her in laws. This, however, in our opinion would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC.
11.From the perusal of the case record, it is reflected that all the seven material public witnesses namely PW1 Uttam Kumar (Jija of the deceased), PW2 Raj Kumar Chaudhary (Father of the deceased), PW3 Dharmender (Cousin brother of deceased), PW4 Shanti (Mother of the deceased), PW5 Smt. Maya (Landlady of the deceased), PW6 Sachin (Son of landlady of deceased), PW7 Gopal Prasad (Mausa of the deceased) have not deposed anything as against this accused. None of them have deposed anything as against accused regarding harassment, torture or demand of dowry upon his wife Lalita during her life time.
12.By taking the cue from the aforesaid judgments and applying the same to the facts and circumstances to the present case, I have no hesitation to safely conclude that the prosecution could not be 23 successful in establishing its case for offence punishable U/S 306/498A IPC as against this accused for exercising dowry harassment and abetting the commission of suicide by deceased Smt. Lalita.
13.The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that this accused Guddu Chaudhary is ordered to be acquitted for the charged offence punishable U/S 306/498A IPC. As this accused is in J.C., he be released forthwith, if not wanted to be detained in any other case and concerned Jail Superintendent be intimated in this regard. After doing the needful by the Ahlmad of this court, this case file be consigned to Record Room. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (B.R. KEDIA) On 22nd February, 2008 Addl. Sessions Judge Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.