Chattisgarh High Court
Ashwini Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 May, 2017
Author: P. Diwaker
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker, Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 901 of 2012
1. Vinod Singh S/o Shri Gopi Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years.
2. Chandraprakash Singh S/o Shri Gopi Singh Thakur Aged About 36 Years.
3. Gopi Singh S/o Late Shri Kripal Singh Thakur Aged About 63 Years.
4. Smt. Raniya Bai W/o Shri Gopi Singh Thakur Aged About 62 Years.
All R/o Ramnagar Ward No. 1 Kawardha, P.S. - Kawardha, Distt. -
Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G.
---- Appellants
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station - In- Charge, P.S. - Kawardha,
Distt. - Kabirdham C.G.
---- Respondent
And
Acquittal Appeal No. 215 of 2012
Ashwini Thakur, S/o Shri Bhagwat Singh, aged about 26 years, R/o
Shankar Nagar, Nawagarh, Police Station Nawagarh, District Bemetara
(CG)
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Kawardha, Distt. -
Kabirdham C.G.
2. Vinod Singh S/o Shri Gopi Singh Thakur Aged About 33 Years.
3. Chandraprakash Singh S/o Shri Gopi Singh Thakur Aged About 36 Years.
4. Gopi Singh S/o Late Shri Kripal Singh Thakur Aged About 63 Years.
5. Smt. Raniya Bai W/o Shri Gopi Singh Thakur Aged About 62 Years.
All R/o Ramnagar Ward No. 1 Kawardha, P.S. - Kawardha, Distt. -
Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G.
---- Respondents
Cr. A. No.901/12:
For Appellant : Shri Praveen Das, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Adil Minhaj, Panel Lawyer.
Acq. A. No.215/12:
For Appellant : Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate
For Respondents : Shri Praveen Das, Advocate & Shri Adil
Mihaj, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Judgement
Per P. Diwaker, J
18/05/2017
1. Since the above criminal appeal and acquittal appeal arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By filing criminal appeal the accused/appellants have challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.9.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in S.T. No.48/2010 by which they have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years & fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo additional RI for 1 year. Whereas, in the acquittal appeal the appellant, brother of deceased, has assailed the acquittal of accused/respondents No.2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 304B/34 & 302/34 the IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution is that deceased Divya was married to accused/appellant No.1 Vinod Singh on 23.5.2010 and she died on 22.6.2010 in the hospital due to poisoning. Merg Intimation was recorded on 22.6.2010 at 11.50 p.m. after receiving memo (Ex.P-14) from the hospital. On 23.6.2010 a typed report (Ex.P-4) was lodged by PW-3 Bhagwat Singh, father of deceased, alleging in it that her daughter was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons as they were not satisfied with the articles given in the marriage and they were pressurizing the deceased to ask her parents to give them four wheeler. Based on this report, FIR (Ex.P-4A) was registered against the accused persons on 23.6.2010 itself for commission of offence punishable under Section 304B/34 IPC. Inquest on the body of deceased was prepared vide Ex. P-3A on 23.6.2010. Body of deceased was sent for post-mortem examination on 23.6.2010 which was conducted by Dr. Prabhat Chandra Prabhakar (PW-1) vide Ex.P-1 and he noticed two abrasions on right side of abdomen and right wrist respectively. However, the doctor conducting post-mortem examination did not give any definite opinion regarding the cause of death. The doctor had preserved the stomach content in two bottle for the purpose of chemical analysis, but there is no report of chemical examiner on record. During the course of investigation, the prosecution seized three undated suicidal notes (Articles A1, A2 & A3) vide Ex.P-8. These suicide notes along with admitted handwriting of the deceased were sent to the State Examiner who after examination gave report, according to which the suicide notes were written by the deceased.
4. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet against the accused/appellants was filed. Initially, the Court below framed the charge under Section 304B of IPC against the accused persons. Later on, the trial Judge framed alternative charge under Section 302/34 IPC & 306/34 IPC. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused persons examined 15 witnesses in all. Two persons were examined as a defence witnesses from the side of defence. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication.
5. The trial Court after appreciation of the entire records came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to establish the offence under Section 306/34 IPC against the accused/appellants and accordingly, convicted the accused/appellants under Section 306/34 IPC by the impugned judgment.
ACQUITTAL APPEAL NO.212/2012.
6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that;
• the trial Court has erred in law in acquitting the accused/respondents No.2 to 5 as there are ample evidence showing involvement of accused persons in the crime in question.
• the possibility that the suicidal letters (Articles A1 to A3) were got written by the accused persons from the deceased under influence and pressure cannot be ruled out.
• the cruelty and torture on account of demand of dowry by the accused persons stand proved by the testimony of PW-3 & PW-13. • the trial Court has erred in not recording categorical finding of acquittal of accused persons under Section 302/34 or 304B/34 IPC which makes the impugned judgment bad in law. It is submitted that non- recording of finding on each charge framed by the trial Court is an illegality and therefore the matter is required to be remitted back to the trial Court for appreciation of evidence afresh and recording categoric finding on each of the offences. Reliance is placed on the provisions of Section 354 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. and the judgment of in the matter of Prem Kaur vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR SCW 2013 3005. • the trial Court has lost sight of the fact that ante mortem injuries were noticed on the body of deceased and no explanation has been offered by any of the accused as to how she sustained those injuries.
7. Counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that;
• the trial Court was absolutely justified in acquitting the respondents No.2 to 5 of the charges under Sections 302/34 & 304B/34 IPC and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court ought to have acquitted them of the charge under Section 306/34 IPC also. • the trial Court failed to appreciate the suicidal notes left behind by the deceased in proper manner. There is no statement in any of the notes written by the deceased to the effect that she was committing suicide because of harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the appellants for demand of dowry or that she was compelled to end her life because she was being constantly taunted for having not got a car in dowry. In fact, the notes say that she had no reason to live and what she was doing was entirely of her own.
• the trial Court having convicted the appellants of the charge under Section 306/34 IPC could not have convicted them of the charge under Sections 302/34 or 304B/34 IPC and therefore it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused by not giving any finding on the alternative charge framed under Sections 302/34 & 304B/34 IPC.
• respondent Nos.2 & 3 were residing at Nawagaon at the relevant point of time, whereas incident took place at Kawardha where the deceased was residing along with her husband.
8. On the other hand, counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.901/2012
9. Counsel for the accused/appellants submit that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made out against the appellants in the present case. He further submits that the appellants have never committed torture upon the deceased for demand of dowry; they have neither instigated nor abetted her suicide and the only fact that unfortunate incident took place within 21 days from the date of marriage is not sufficient to draw the inference that present appellants are liable for the commission of offence. He further submits that in the suicidal notes recovered by the prosecution the deceased did not make any allegation against the accused persons. The contents of suicide note also do not reflect that the deceased was harassed on account of any unlawful demand. It is apparent that the deceased was not happy for some reasons, but these reasons are not explained by these suicidal notes. He further submits that even the allegations levelled against the appellants are general in nature and no specific act has been attributed to any of the accused persons. It appears that the typed report has been prepared by someone else which appears to have been signed by PW-3. There are contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.
10. Supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State Counsel that conviction of accused/appellants under Section 306/34 IPC and the resultant sentence is just and proper and no interference therewith is warranted.
11. Dr. Prabhat Chandra Prabhakar (PW-1) is the person who conducted post-mortem examination over the body of deceased. This witness has opined that no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given.
12. Panchram Bhaskar (PW-2) is the Naib Tahsildar who prepared the inquest report Ex.P-3A.
13. Bhagwat Singh (PW-3), father of deceased, is the complainant who lodged the written report (Ex.P-4). He has stated that marriage of his daughter was solemnized with accused Vinod Singh on 23.5.2010. He has further stated that having come to know from his daughter that her husband is demanding car in dowry, he assured his daughter that he will make arrangements to fulfil the demand made by her in-laws'. He has further stated that on 22nd he had talked to his daughter who informed him that on 23rd she is coming with her husband. However, on 23rd he came to know from his brother-in-law Munna Singh that the deceased is admitted in the hospital. Hearing this, he along with his wife reached the hospital at Kawardha, however, by that time his daughter had expired. He has further stated that he has given the articles in the marriage as per his capacity. It is relevant to note her that this witness is also a witness of inquest but at the time of inquest he has not stated anything against accused persons.
14. Ashwini (PW-4), brother of deceased, has stated that he came to know through his father that the deceased was not happy in her matrimonial home as her in-laws were not satisfied with the articles given to her in the marriage. He has further stated that the deceased used to talk him daily on telephone and that the deceased had informed him about the demand of money by her in-laws. However, in the cross-examination this witness has stated that though his sister (deceased) was talking to him daily on phone, but she never complained about any dowry demand raised by the accused persons or harassment in connection therewith and complained about the same on the date of incident only. He has further stated that on 14th when he had gone to bring back the deceased at that time she did not inform him anything.
15. Sharad Chandra Shrivastava (PW-5) is the person who first treated the deceased at District Hospital, Kabirdham. He has stated that when the deceased was brought hospital at that time she was alive and she was talking but she had not made any allegation of any kind of dowry demand or harassment by the accused persons.
16. Amarpal Singh (PW-7) is the Assistant Sub-Inspector who helped in the initial investigation. Rashmikant Mishra (PW-8) is the person who recorded the FIR (Ex.P-4A) against the accused persons. He has also seized three suicidal notes from the room of the deceased in presence of the witnesses vide seizure memo of Ex.P-8.
17. Ravi Agrawal (PW-9), friend of Ashwini (PW-4), has stated that he was informed by the deceased that her in-laws are demanding Rs.1 Lakh and that she is not feeling good in her matrimonial home. However, this witness has admitted in the cross-examination that he had never informed the parents of the deceased that he was informed by the deceased that her in-laws are demanding Rs.1 Lakh. This witness has stated that elder brother of the husband of deceased was residing in Dongergarh as he was working there as Shiksha Karmi.
18. Dinesh Yadav (PW-10) is another person to whom the deceased had informed that her in-laws are asking her to bring money from her parents for purchasing four wheeler.
19. Umesh Kshetriya (PW-11) is the witness of seizure memo ExP-8 by which three suicidal notes, packet of poison etc. were seized from the room of the deceased.
20. Mohanlal (PW-12) is the Patwari who prepared the spot map Ex.P-21).
21. Uttarika (PW-13), mother of deceased, has stated that after the marriage, in-laws of her daughter used to harass her for bringing inadequate dowry in the marriage. She has further stated that after the marriage when the deceased had come to her house for the first time, she informed her by crying that all the articles given to her in the marriage were kept by her in- laws. She has further stated that her daughter informed her that her husband and his family members are demanding Rs.5 lakh for purchasing a car. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that at the time of incident the father-in-law & brother-in-law of deceased were residing in Dongergarh. She has further stated that veins of both the hands of her daughter were cut and she has disclosed this fact at the time of inquest proceedings.
22. Archana Jha (PW-14) is the person who assisted in the investigation. This witness had seized certain documents vide Ex.P-6 & P-22. She has also seized gold & silver ornaments of the deceased vide Ex.P-11. This witness has sent the documents seized in the course of investigation for examination by the handwriting expert and obtained the report of Ex.P-27.
23. Nivedita Paul (PW-15) is the investigating officer who has duly supported the prosecution case. This witness has categorically stated that the parents of deceased had never made any allegation against the accused persons of having caused harassment and torture upon the deceased on account of dowry demand.
24. Ramesh Jaiswal (DW-1) & Basantlal Patil (DW-2) have stated that accused Vinod and his father were not residing at Kawardha. They have further stated that relationship between the deceased and the accused persons were cordial.
25. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
26. In the matter of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC 707, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as under:-
"15. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
27. In the present case the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the accused/appellants guilty under Section 306/34 IPC by holding that it was the accused/appellants who created such an atmosphere in the life of the deceased by subjecting her to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry that she was left with no alternative but to end her life by committing suicide, just after a couple of weeks from her marriage. However, the documentary evidence on record i.e. letters/suicidal notes written the deceased herself give a quite different picture. The letter addressed by the deceased to her parents reads thus;-
"eSa fnO;k Bkdqj viuh ethZ ls vkRe gR;k dj jgh gWw blesa esjs llqjkyokyksa dk nksl ugh gS uk mUgsa fdlh Hkh izdkj ls nkslh Bgjk;k tk, vkSj uk blesa esjs eka cki dh Hkh dksbZ Hkh xYrh ugh gSA esjs lkl llqj esjs llqjky esa lHkh eq>ls cgqr I;kj djrs gS eSa viuh ekSr dh dkj.k [kwn gWw otg fy[kuk eSa t:jh ugh le>rh rFkk esjh ;gh izkFkZuk gS dh esjs ejus ds ckn esjs ek;ds ;k llqjky okyksa dks ijs'kku ugh fd;k tk, ;gh esjh vUrhe bPNk gS fnO;k Bkdqj"
28. Letter addressed by the deceased to her brother is as under:-
"fiz; esjs HkkbZ nnnw vki tSls HkkbZ fdLer okyksa dks feyrk gS vki eq>ls cgqr I;kj djrs gks eq>s ekywe gS eS Hkh vEek ikik vkSj vkils cgqr I;kj djrh gWw esjs ikl vc ftus dh dksbZ otg ugh jg xbZ gS esjs ikl eSa cgqr grkl vkSj fujk'k gks xbZ gWw irk ugh eq>s D;k gks x;k gS jkr dks uhan ugh vkrh gS dksbZ [kqlh dk vglkl ugh gksrk esjs ejus ds ckn vEek ikik dk /;ku j[kuk vkSj mUgsa esjs fgLls dk Hkh I;kj djuk vkSj rqe dksbZ vPNh yM+dh ns[kdj tYnh 'kknh dj ysuk D;ksfd vEek ikik cgqr vdsys gks tk,sxsa esjs ckn esjh vk[kjh vkSj vUrhe bPNk gS fd eEeh ikik dks esjh deh ugh eglwl gksus nsuk gks lds rks nks ;k rhu cPps iSnk djuk gh ugh rhu mlesa ,d yM+dh t:j gks tks esjh deh dks iwjk djs mls vRefo'oklh lgklh vkSj fuMj cukuk esjh rjg Mjiksd uk gks tks thUnxh ges'kk Mj Mj ds thrh gS gks lds rks esjh rjg Mjiksd ugh mls vRefo'oklh vkSj -------------lksp okyh vkSj------------cukuk rFkk vEek ikik dk [;ky j[kuk vius thtk th ls fl[k vius ekrk firk dk lEeku vkSj I;kj djuk oSls vki Hkh eEeh ikik ls cgqr I;kj vkSj lEeku djrs gks Qhj Hkh iRuh vkus ds ckn ugh cnyuk HkkbZ vkSj mudk [;ky j[kuk oSls eq>s iwjk fo'okl gS dh rqe ugh cnyksxs ;gka ij rqe eSaus blfy, fy[kk gS D;ksfd dHkh vki eq>ls cM+s yxrs gks vkSj dHkh rqe esjs I;kjs NksVs HkkbZ yxrs gks viuk [;ky j[kuk D;ksfd esjs ckn vEek ikik dh rqe ,d gh lgkjk gks vEek ikik I;kj ls jguk ,d nwljs dks le>uk vkSj NksVh&NksVh ckrksa esa yM+kbZ ugh djuk vkil esa vkSj esjk liuk Fkk vki yksxksa dks lEiw.kZ rhFkksZ dh ;k=k t:j djuk vkSj eSa viuh ethZ ls ej jgh gWw blesa esjs llqjky okyksa ;k esjs ifr dk dksbZ nksl ugh gS esjh Hkkoukvksa dks le>uk vkSj bu yksxksa ds lkFk dksbZ yM+kbZ >xM+k ugh djuk budk dksbZ nksl ugh gS eSa gh thuk ugh pkgrh D;ksa vkSj dSls eSa [kqn ugh tkurh eSa vkils ckj&ckj fourh djrh gWw esjs ek;ds vkSj llqjky okyksa esa dksbZ yM+kbZ uk gks uk dksbZ muds mij nkslkjksi.k gks vkidh I;kjh csVh iIih"
29. Letter written by the deceased to her husband is quoted below:-
"fiz; ifr nso esjs I;kjs ifr nso eSa vkils cgqr I;kj djrh gWw vkSj eSa gh vkids dkchy ugh gWw blfy, esjs ejus ds ckn nq[kh er gksuk vkSj vius vki dks esjh ekSr dh ftEesnkj er le>uk gks lds rks nwljh 'kknh dj ysuk gks lds rks ugh t:jh djuk ;s esjh vafre bPNk gS vkSj cky cPPkksa vkSj ifRu ds lkFk lq[kh thou O;rhr djuk vkSj viuh thUnxh dks [kqlh [kqlh thuk gks lds rks viuh bl ikxy choh dks dHkh dHkh ;kn dj ysuk esjh vkRek dks 'kkafr feysxh vkils vkSj dqN dgus dh vko';drk ugh gS vki [kqn le>nkj gks vki ,d vPNs csVs vkSj ,d vPNs ifr gks eSa gh 'kk;n vkidh dkchy ugh Fkh vkSj uk gh vkids ?kj okyksa ds dkchy cu ldh gks lds rks eq>s ekQ dj nsuk esjh cpdkuh gjdrksa ds fy, esjk I;kj vkSj lsok fn[kkok ugh Fkk f'ko th dh dle eSa vius vkjk/; Hkksys ukFk dh >wBh dle ugh [kkrh gWw dHkh gks lds rks eq>s ekQ djuk esjh bl cpdkuh gjdr ds fy, vkidh ifRu fnO;k"
30. The fact that above suicidal notes/letters are in the handwriting of the deceased is not in dispute. Even otherwise the same were examined by the State Examiner of Questioned Document and compared with the admitted handwriting of the deceased and were found to be written by the deceased herself vide opinion dated 20.8.2010 available on record.
31. A bare reading of Article A-1 is reveals that in this letter the deceased has stated that everyone in her matrimonial love her very much and she herself is entirely responsible for what she is doing and no one else i.e. her in-laws or parents, is responsible for her act. The contents of this letter also reflects that the deceased was not happy for some reasons and does not want to live, but these reasons are not well explained and established by this note. However, in this entire note there is no complaint of any maltreatment by her in laws or by her husband. There is also no whisper about any demand being made by her in-laws or her husband.
32. Similarly, the letter (Article A-2) written by the deceased to her brother reveals that she loved her parents & brother very much but now she had left with no reason to live as she feels disappointed & depressed and she failed to understand why such a feeling has come in her. In this letter she requested her brother to find a good match for himself and to take care of her parents. At the end of this letter also she has stated that she is entirely responsible for what she is doing and no one i.e. her in-laws and parents, was to blame. This letter also does not contain any imputation against her husband or in-laws. There is no reference to any demand made by anyone.
33. Letter of Article A-3 written by the deceased to her husband is to the effect that the relations between the deceased and her husband were cordial and she has described her husband as a good nature loving person. In this letter the deceased has stated that "my dear husband, I really love you very much and perhaps I myself was not befitting you, therefore, do not be in grief after my death and if possible get a remarriage performed." She has concluded by seeking forgiveness for her such an childish act. It will thus appear from the contents of this letter as well that she was not being treated in a cruel manner or that any demand was being made by her husband or her in-laws. If the deceased was really being tortured and harassed, it is unlikely that she would have written such letters to her husband.
34. Thus, in the above suicidal notes, which were written during the period when, according to the prosecution, the deceased was being subjected to cruelty and torture and a consistent demand for a car etc. was being made, there is no statement to the effect that the deceased was committing suicide because she had been harassed or tortured by her husband or in -laws or that she was compelled to end her life because she was being constantly taunted or tortured for not bringing adequate dowry in the marriage or for non fulfilment of demand of any demand much less the demand of car. On the contrary, these letter supports the case of the defence that they had showered love and affection on the deceased and not subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. It further appears from these letters that there was a normal happy relationship between the deceased and her in-laws and she was loved by all members of her matrimonial and probably, for this reason, she has stated in all three notes that "no one else is responsible for what she is doing and that what she is doing was entirely of her own will". This apart, the fact that she was keen to get her husband remarried is indicative of the fact that she found her husband, father-in-law, mother-in- law and other members of the family to be good natured persons and was therefore keen to get her husband remarried. If the deceased was really being harassed and treated with cruelty due to non fulfilment of demand of dowry, one would have expected some mention, direct or indirect, of such conduct of the husband or in-laws of the deceased, but there is nothing like that in it. In these circumstances, it cannot be believed by stretch of any imagination that the accused/appellants used to harass the deceased or abetted the commission of suicide.
35. As regards the abrasions marks found on the body of the deceased, the fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death is not in dispute. It is also nobody's case that her death was homicidal one. In the First Information Report also it was categorically stated that the deceased had committed suicide. In these circumstances, mere presence of abrasion injuries, which were classified by autopsy surgeon as simple injuries not sufficient to cause death, alone is not sufficient to draw adverse inference against the accused/appellants.
36. So far as the argument advanced by counsel for the appellant in acquittal appeal regarding non-appraisal of the alternative charges framed by the Court below i.e. Section 302/34 & 304B/34 IPC is concerned, true it is that the judgment of Court must indicate what it decides. However, when judgments are made in remiss of this clear function, does that mean that the accused has to suffer for no fault of his? Is he not entitled to put reasonable construction on the judgment made so as to bring out the effective intentions of the Court? The answer to such salutary question is that such a judgment primarily would fall under the category covered by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 354 Cr.P.C., its minimum requirement being that the judgment will have to specify the offences with reference to the provisions of law for which the accused is convicted and punishment imposed therefor. However, such a judgment would not specifically be the judgment of acquittal as contemplated by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 354 Cr.P.C. though for the offences which were not proved the accused would stand acquitted. This approach is necessary to secure the ends of justice, to sub-serve the concept of personal liberty under law and also to avoid double vexation of the person, who was specifically prosecuted and faced trial, on account of omission in expression of recording acquittal at the end of trial.
37. In the present case also, prima facie there is no material on record leading an accusing finger towards the accused/appellants of their involvement for alternative charges i.e. offences under Section 302/34 or 304B/34. However, while recording the finding the trial Court was supposed to deal with those charges also in the light of the evidence adduced by the prosecution but unfortunately that exercise could not be undertaken. Counsel for the complainant could not point out as to what prejudice has been caused to him by a technical flaw of non-recording of finding on the alternative charges under certain particular sections. This apart, the trial Court having convicted the appellants of the charge under Section 306/34 IPC could not have convicted him of the alternative charges i.e. Section 302/34 or 304B/34 IPC. In this view of the matter, this argument raised by the counsel for the complainant does not appear to have any serious impact on the decision of the case and accordingly it is turned down.
38. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased alone, and none else, is responsible for her death. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that it was the accused/appellants who subjected the deceased with cruelty for demand of dowry or abetted the suicide committed by deceased and that the appellants are entitled to acquittal.
39. In the result;
• Criminal Appeal No.901/2012 is allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellants under Section 306/34 IPC are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of that charge. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, their bail bonds stand cancelled. • Acquittal Appeal No.215/2012 is dismissed.
40. Before we part with this judgment, we would like to observe that the process of law and justice is communicative, therefore, it is expected from the trial Courts to record specific finding in the judgment, as per provisions contained in Section 354 Cr.P.C., while acquitting or convicting the accused from each of the offences with which he/she was charged and not to leave the matters to be spelt out from results. Let a wide circulation of this observation be made to all the District & Sessions Judges of the State and also to the Director, Judicial Officers Training Institute, Bilaspur to prevent recurrence of any such lapse in future.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Pritinker Diwaker) (RCS Samant)
Judge Judge
roshan