Delhi District Court
State vs Vipin Kumar on 26 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI
DELHI
New Sessions Case No. 51570/2016
FIR No. 1147/2015
PS Sultan Puri
U/s 304B IPC
State Versus Vipin Kumar
Son of Sh. Chaman Lal
Resident of H. No. 5/11,
Friends Enclave, Sultan Puri,
Delhi.
Present Address:-
H.No. 36A, Suleman Nagar,
Gali No.1, Rattan Vihar,
Sultan Puri, Delhi.
Date of institution in Sessions Court: 12/04/2016
Date of conclusion of arguments : 17/11/2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 26/11/2016
Memo of Appearance:
Sh. A.B. Asthana, learned Addl. P.P. for State
Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary, learned defence counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
1 Accused Vipin Kumar has been sent-up to face trial for commission of offences u/s 304B IPC.
2 Case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is to the effect that accused Vipin Kumar @ Veer was in love with Rajni. Rajni married him against the wishes of her parents. Since such marriage did not have their approval, they severed all their ties with their daughter. However, in April-May, 2015, Rajni called them up and told them that her husband used to beat her up. PW1 Madhu (mother of Rajni) intervened and asked them to live in harmony. PW2 Pawan Bhati (cousin brother of Rajni) also went to their house situated in Sultan Puri in June-July, 2015. He, however, could FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 1 of 16 not meet Vipin Kumar but asked his mother to tell Vipin to adjust with Rajni properly. However, there was no change in the attitude of Vipin.
3 Rajni had also revealed to her mother that Vipin was having extra- marital affair. Proceedings conducted before CAW cell also indicated that Rajni was upset on account of such conduct of her husband.
4 On 29/11/2015, a phone call was received from PS Sultan Puri at about 9.30 p.m. informing that Rajni had died. Comprehensive investigation was carried out.
5 Statement of Madhu was recorded by Sh. Amit Kumar Singh, the then Executive Magistrate, Rohini who directed SHO, PS Sultan Puri to take appropriate action as per law.
6 SHO then directed registration of case u/s 304B IPC. Further investigation was carried out by Inspector Krishan Kumar.
7 As per autopsy report, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. Viscera also did not indicate presence of any poisonous substance.
8 It will be important to mention that during investigation, police had stumbled upon one handwritten note of accused Vipin, in which, he had admitted his mistake. It was taken as a circumstance against him. One diary was also seized from the spot which contained handwriting of deceased, in which, she had mentioned about deteriorating matrimonial relationship of hers.
9 It is in these circumstances that the accused has been arrested and charge-sheeted for commission of offence u/s 304B IPC.
10 Charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned Magisterial Court on 10/03/2016 and since the offence u/s 304B IPC was triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the case was ordered to be committed.
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 2 of 1611 Case was received on allocation by this Court on 12/04/2016 and vide detailed order dated 26/04/2016, accused was ordered to be charged u/s 498A/306 IPC while holding that there was no material on record to charge accused u/s 304B IPC. It will be important to mention that while framing charges, certain admitted facts were noticed. These admitted facts are extracted as under:-
(i) Accused Vipin and Rajni (deceased) were in love.
(ii) Rajni went missing in December 2011 but later on it was learnt that she
had married accused.
(iii) Such marriage took place before Arya Samaj Mandir on 30.12.2011.
(iv) Rajni was major at the time of such marriage as her date of birth is
01.09.1991.
(v) Family members of Rajni were against such marriage and never
remained in touch with her after such marriage.
(vi) Rajni was blessed with one daughter but even that did not make any
difference and parental side relatives of Rajni never visited her.
(vii) One report was lodged by Rajni with CAW Cell, Rohini in August 2015.
However, such complaint was not pursued further by her as the matter was patched up.
(viii) Rajni committed suicide by hanging herself at her matrimonial home on 29.11.2015.
(ix) Such death is suicidal in nature even as per report of autopsy surgeon as death was due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
(x) Ligature material was seized and such ligature material (chunni) was also sent to forensic expert and it was opined that ligature marks appearing over the neck of the deceased were possible with such chunni/ligature material.
(xi) No common poison or other substance of similar nature could be detected in the viscera examination.
(xii) No suicide note was left behind by the deceased though one handwritten diary was seized.
12 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined seventeen witnesses. These are as under:-
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 3 of 16 S. No. Name of witness Examined by
prosecution for proving
1 PW1 Madhu, mother of deceased Alleged cruelty
2 PW2 Pawan Bhati, cusin brother of Alleged cruelty
deceased
3 PW3 SI Randhir Singh, In-charge Crime Team Report
Crime Team
4 PW4 Sh. Amit Kumar Singh, Inquest proceedings
Executive Magistrate
5 PW5 Inspector Mahesh Kumar Scaled site plan
6 PW6 SI Devender PCR form
7 PW7 HC Sanjay Shinde, Duty Officer FIR
8 PW8 Ct Raj Kumar Photographs
9 PW9 Sharmila, relative of deceased Conduct of accused
10 PW10 Nitin Kumar, younger brother of Conduct of accused
accused
11 PW11 Ajay Karar, FSL Expert Chemical examination
related to viscera
12 PW12 Dr. Munish Wadhawan, Postmortem report
Autopsy Surgeon
13 PW13 Inspector Krishan Kumar, Investigation
Investigating officer
14 PW14 HC Parveen, MHC(M) Entries of registers No. 19
and 21
15 PW15 W/Ct Rekha Arrest of accused and
other investigational
aspects
16 PW16 SI Naresh, CAW Cell Proceedings before CAW
Cell
17 PW17 SI Sharwan Kumar First IO and also remained
associated with
subsequent investigation.
13 Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted
that there was a love marriage between him and Rajni. He, however, claimed that he was never involved in any extra-marital relationship and the report lodged with CAW Cell against him by his wife Rajni was a false one. He also claimed that his FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 4 of 16 wife was upset because her family members did not approve such marriage and did not maintain any relationship with her. He claimed that there was cordial relationship between him and his wife, though he could not specify any reason as to why this case had been made against him.
14 I have heard learned Addl. P.P. and learned defence counsel and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
15 According to Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary, learned defence counsel, no case is made out and even the prosecution is totally misconceived and fallacious as there is nothing on record to suggest that accused had ever treated his wife with cruelty or that he had abetted her suicide in any manner whatsoever. It has also been claimed that even if one goes through the testimony of public witnesses, it would become very clear that there was never any act of cruelty on the part of accused. He disowned the alleged handwritings either as that of accused or deceased while supplementing that though as per police, some pages/notes were picked-up from the spot but in the most careless and perfunctory manner, the entire diary was not seized and some papers were torn from the diary and were then seized. He has also supplemented that even if, it is assumed that accused was involved in extra- marital relationship, such fact, by itself, would not constitute either cruelty or abetment.
16 Sh. Asthana, learned Addl. PP has, on the other hand, contended that accused is unmistakably responsible for the suicide of his wife as he despite entering into a love marriage became disloyal to her and developed extra-marital affair. He has also drawn my attention towards the complaint/which Rajni had lodged with CAW Cell, in which, she clearly claimed that her husband was having extra-marital affair with one girl Neha and, therefore, she used to remain upset. He has contended that handwritten note of accused and the writings of deceased clearly go on to demonstrate that their marriage was in doldrums and in complete disarray because of such extra-marital affair. He has thus contended that in such a peculiar background, the aspect of extra-marital affair, in itself, is sufficient to make out a clear cut case of cruelty which eventually led to her suicide.
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 5 of 1617 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
18 Police swung into action when the information was received at PS Sultan Puri on 29/11/2015. Such information was reduced into writing vide DD No. 26A. Such DD was recorded at 6.47 p.m. and as per the information contained in such DD No. 26A (Ex. PW7/C), the caller had informed that her jethani had committed suicide by hanging. The call had emanated from mobile no. 9266882924. On the basis of such information, SI Sharwan was deputed for carrying out necessary investigation. PW17 SI Sharwan has deposed that after receiving DD No. 26A, he along with Ct Vinay reached the spot i.e. H.No. 5/11, Friends Enclave. There they saw one female lying dead on a cot having ligature mark around her neck. He also met caller Sharmila (Bhabhi of deceased) and other family members and he was apprised that they heard cries of a small baby of accused who was sleeping with her mother in a room which was bolted from inside. They also apprised that despite their best efforts, they could not open the door from outside and, therefore, the door was broken-open by kicks and then they saw Rajni in hanging condition. She had hanged herself with a chunni after tying the same from ceiling fan. They also apprised him (SI Shrawan) that they brought the body down and put the same on the cot and then informed the police.
19 PW9 Sharmila and PW10 Nitin Kumar have entered into witness box but surprisingly, neither they themselves revealed these things not state got these extracted from them. Even the prosecution did not confront them on the said aspects regarding breaking-open of door by them. PW9 Sharmila admitted that the police had seized one chunni with which Rajni had committed suicide. She has also proved such seizure memo as Ex. PW9/B. According to her, Rajni used to doubt her husband Vipin and used to tell her that Vipin used to talk with other girls and, therefore, there used to be quarrel between them. As per PW9 Sharmila, Rajni also used to remain unhappy as her parents were not on talking terms with her and despite various requests made by Rajni to her parents to meet her or visit her, her parents never acceded to such requests and, therefore, Rajni used to feel depressed. According to her, there was no other issue between Rajni and her husband. In her cross-examination conducted by defence, she claimed that even FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 6 of 16 when Rajni was blessed with a girl, her parents were invited and were requested to come to bless the newly born baby but no one visited from her parental side. She also claimed that therefore, Rajni used to remain under extreme emotional stress/depression. She, however, claimed that she could not say as to why Rajni had committed suicide though she reiterated that Rajni used to quarrel with her husband as she used to doubt him.
20 PW10 Nitin Kumar also echoed in a similar manner and according to him also, Rajni used to remain upset as her parents were not on talking terms with her. He also, when cross-examined by prosecution, admitted that Rajni used to quarrel with Vipin as she suspected that Vipin was having illicit relations with someone. He pleaded his ignorance about girl Neha with whom accused was having the alleged extra-marital affair. He was even confronted with his previous statement in this regard but he denied having made any such statement to the police, in which, he might have claimed that accused was having relations with another girl and, therefore, Rajni was depressed and had committed suicide.
21 There is no doubt that the death of Rajni is by hanging.
22 PW12 Dr. Munish Wadhawan had conducted the postmortem and such postmortem report has been proved by him as Ex. PW12/A and as per his specific opinion and finding, Rajni had died due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging. On external examination, he had noticed ligature mark with width 0.8 cm and 29 cm long present above the thyroid eminence in midline of neck running upward and backward obliquely on both sides and absent over nape of neck. He also noticed three abrasions on left forehead, left face and malar region of left face but according to his specific report, the death was on account of antemortem hanging. He was also shown the chunni with the help of which Rajni had committed suicide and after examining the said ligature material and postmortem report, he opined that the ligature mark present on the neck of deceased was possible with such ligature material as well. His such subsequent opinion has also been proved as Ex. PW12/B. FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 7 of 16 23 It is clear from the chemical examination report given by PW11 Sh. Ajay Karar that there was no poisonous substance in preserved viscera. Such report has been proved as Ex. PW11/A. There is no other circumstance which may create any suspicion with respect to the manner of death and even the prosecution admits that it is a case of suicide.
24 Let me now switch over to the testimony of PW1 Madhu and PW2 Pawan Bhati. They are the only witnesses examined from the parental side of Rajni.
25 PW1 Madhu happens to be the mother of deceased and according to her, Rajni went missing in December, 2011 and they, later on, learnt that she was having affair with one boy Veer and had eloped with him. Curiously, she even went to the extent of deposing that since she never met such Veer, she was in no position to identify him. She also claimed that they had severed all relations with Rajni. She did claim that she had received call from her daughter whereby she was informed that they had been blessed with a daughter and she wanted them to visit her. She, however, claimed that they did not go to her place.
26 In her further deposition, PW1 Madhu claimed that she had received one call from Rajni in the year 2015, in which, she revealed that she used to be beaten-up by her husband and then she (Madhu) talked to him on phone and told him not to do so. However, accused did not mend his ways and she received one more call from Rajni in June-July, 2015 who told her that Veer (accused) had made her fall from bike and left her stranded on the road. She, however, simply asked Rajni to go back to her matrimonial home and to tell everything to her mother-in-law.
27 All said aspects, to my mind, evidently go on to indicate that she was least concerned with the well-being of her daughter. She did not care to meet her even when she was blessed with a child nor when she was in trouble, PW1 Madhu never ever met accused and did not visit their house even. This rather gels with the defence story that parents of deceased had severed all their relations after such love marriage between the accused and Rajni.
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 8 of 1628 PW1 Madhu further deposed that Rajni had made a complaint before CAW Cell against the accused and Rajni had also told her that the root cause of the quarrel was extra-marital relationship between accused and another girl. She also sent Pawan (cousin of Rajni) to their house but Pawan could not meet Veer.
29 During trial, Madhu was shown a bunch of papers and she claimed that such bunch of papers was in the handwriting of her daughter Rajni. Said set of documents was accordingly exhibited as Ex.PW1/B. Fact remains that she was never shown these documents during investigation.
30 In her cross-examination, PW1 Madhu admitted that it was correct that right from the date, Rajni eloped till she died, neither she herself (Madhu) nor any member of their family met Rajni, though she claimed that she had been conversing with Rajni on mobile but she has failed to supply such mobile number of Rajni even when she was specifically asked to tell the same. This creates a doubt in the mind of the court and it is not certain whether she actually knew mobile number of Rajni and whether she actually talked to her on mobile. No call detail records (CDR) have either been collected or placed on record.
31 Testimony of PW2 Pawan Bhati also does not take us anywhere.
32 According to him also, the family of his Bua Madhu had severed all their relationship with Rajni as Rajni had married against their wishes. He, surprisingly, also claimed that he had met Rajni and her husband at Madhuban Chowk on one occasion and they both were looking very happy at that time. He corroborated Madhu by claiming that he had visited their house in year 2015. He claimed that he met Rajni as well as mother and brother of accused but did not get any opportunity to meet and talk to accused. He deposed that Rajni told him that accused was having relationship with one girl Neha and Veer used to beat her up whenever she used to ask her not to go out and to stay at the home. He also claimed that he learnt from the mother of accused that accused was having extra-marital relationship due to which Rajni used to remain upset and a report was lodged with CAW Cell.
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 9 of 1633 Testimony of PW1 Madhu and PW2 Pawan Bhati merely indicate that Rajni had told them that accused was having extra-marital relationship due to which there used to be quarrel between the couple. No other reason behind the quarrel has been elucidated or enlightened by them.
34 It will be now useful to see the report which Rajni had lodged with CAW Cell.
35 In this regard, reference be made to the testimony of PW16 SI Naresh Kumar.
36 He remained posted at CAW Cell, Sector-3, Rohini, Outer District and according to him, complaint of Rajni, which had been received by CAW Cell, was assigned to him for inquiry. He has categorically deposed that Rajni was aggrieved as her husband was having extra-marital relations with one girl Neha. According to him, both the sides were counseled at CAW Cell and they both sought time to settle the matter amicably and on 31/08/2015, Rajni prayed that her complaint may be closed as the matter stood compromised. He has also proved her such handwritten note as Ex. PW13/K9. I have seen the relevant record in this regard. The complaint made by Rajni is from page Ex. PW13/K3 to Ex. PW13/K4. In such complaint, the only allegation appearing against the accused is that he was having relationship with one girl Neha and, therefore, her husband was desirous of giving divorce to her. She never made any other allegation against the accused. In her subsequent statement which she made before CAW Cell on 31/08/2015, she claimed that the matter had been patched-up and she did not want any further action. Same is found recorded in Ex. PW13/K9.
37 I have also seen Ex. PW1/B (collectively). There are sixteen pages in all and according to prosecution, these are in the hand of deceased Rajni. Her such handwritten notes reveal that she had felt cheated. Such notes also indicate that she was upset as her parents were still against their such marriage. Such handwritten contents also go on to indicate that she missed her parents very much and also desired that she could talk to them. Such notes also indicate that she used to address her husband as "Sona" out of love and asked him to keep care of their FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 10 of 16 daughter and wanted that her pyre be given fire by their daughter. The last page of such note shows that she reconciled with her situation and she and her husband had agreed that in case, there was any other quarrel between them, then they both would separate and would divorce by way of mutual consent. Undoubtedly, she also claimed therein that if there was any problem to her and her daughter, then Vipin be held responsible but fact remains that she did not mention any overt act of cruelty on the part of her husband.
38 Note Ex. PW13/C is purportedly in the hand of accused. The contents of such note indicate that the writer was guilt-ridden. It also indicates that the writer appreciated the manner in which his wife adjusted herself in his family and he rather held himself responsible and requested her to forgive him because he was not suitable for her.
39 There are two very strange and astonishing aspects related to such handwritten notes.
40 As per PW13 Inspector Krishan Kumar, when he had reached the spot on 30/11/2015, the spot was inspected and on inspection of the room, he found one diary and one notebook and the notes appearing therein were found relevant and he went through these handwritten notes of the diary and notebook and removed the relevant pages and then seized the same. In his cross-examination also, he reaffirmed that he removed the relevant pages from the diary and then seized the same and the left-over diary and notebook were handed over to the brother of accused.
41 PW17 Sharwan was also with him at the time of such seizure and somehow, he does not recall the facts properly. According to him, no diary was seized, though pursuant to the Court question, he claimed that he did not recall the number of the diaries recovered and seized but according to him, there were some pages besides the diary. If I go through the testimony of both these important police officials, it would also become clear that they both have come-up with different versions regarding the place from where these pages or diaries were seized.
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 11 of 1642 Be that as it may, it was not at all justified on the part of the police to have removed few pages from the diary, which they considered relevant. They should have rather seized the entire diary and should have placed the same for judicial scrutiny before the Court instead of deciding themselves as to what was relevant and what not. Secondly, no attempt whatsoever was made by the police to lay hands upon the admitted handwriting of accused. If they were convinced with the handwriting appearing in Ex. PW13/C was that of accused, then they should have taken steps to collect his handwriting and should have sent the same along with Ex. PW13/C to FSL for having the opinion of handwriting expert. Nothing of that sort was done or attempted. Investigation agency was also not justified in robotically assuming the handwriting to be of deceased Rajni. For the reasons best know to the investigating agency, they did not contact any family member of the parental side of Rajni in order to reassure itself that the diary contained her handwriting. Her mother has categorically admitted in the witness box that she was never shown any such writing during the investigation. Curiously, brother and Bhabhi of accused, as per their statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., were shown these handwritings but even in their such statements, they never specifically answered as to who was the author of such handwriting. In witness box, the situation is worse as they have out-rightly denied that any such handwriting was shown to them. Very evidently, no effort was made to send the handwriting of deceased as contained in Ex. PW1/B to handwriting expert along with handwriting appearing in Ex. PW13/K3 and Ex. PW13/K4, though a bare glance would show that the handwritings appearing on both said documents were of one and the same person. Be that as it may, it was again a major lapse on the part of investigating agency. Taking advantage of the aforesaid unusual situation and lapse on the part of investigating agency, even the accused had attempted to dig out undue advantage by disowning her as well as his own handwriting. Be that as it may, it seems quite palpable that accused has come-up with a false stand on this aspect.
43 Even if I assume for a moment that Ex.PW1/B was in the hand of deceased, it does not reveal any act of cruelty on the part of accused. The only allegation appearing against the accused is that he had indulged in extra-marital relationship which had ostensibly disturbed the mental equilibrium of deceased and perhaps compelled her to take such an extreme step.
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 12 of 1644 In STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. ORILAL JAISWAL AIR 1994 SC 1418 Apex Court has observed that 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 her 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.
45 It cannot be concluded from the evidence brought on record that conduct of accused was such that any person of ordinary prudence would have been driven to commit suicide. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In the case of Kartar Singh & Ors. Vs. CBI 131 (2006) DLT 643 Delhi, it has been observed that even if it is alleged and shown that the deceased had been treated harshly or unfairly, it could not be said that the accused had instigated, goaded or incited her to commit suicide. It was also observed that mens rea was an essential ingredient and State was required to show that the accused had mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide.
46 Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. Suvetha Vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr. 2009(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 923 observed as under:
"The word `cruelty" having been defined in terms of the aforesaid explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code."FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 13 of 16
47 Reference be also made to Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Versus State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48. It has been held therein that prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. Observing further that but for the alleged extra-marital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing had been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide. Following observations made by Apex Court are noteworthy:-
"We are of the view that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to "cruelty", but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the explanation to Section 498A IPC. Harassment, of course, need not be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Section 498A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one's life. We, on facts, found that the alleged extra marital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide or that A-1 had ever intended or Page 20 acted in such a manner which under normal circumstances, would drive the wife to commit suicide."
48 In Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 262 OF 2009 ( DoD: 18.02.2015), it was observed by Apex Court as under:-
".....True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 14 of 16 to drive the wife to commit suicide. In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted."
49 Reference be also made to another judgment of Apex Court decided four days back i.e. on 22.11.2016. In K.V. Prakash Babu vs. State of Karnataka (Crl Appeal Numbers 1138-1139 of 2016), while reiterating the aforesaid observations made in said two judgments Apex court explicated that solely because the husband was involved in an extra-marital relationship and there was some suspicion in the mind of wife, that could not be regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 IPC. It observed that there was no whisper with regard to any kind of ill-treatment or cruel behaviour by the husband other than the allegation of extra-marital relationship and then went on to hold that "Extra-marital relationship, per se, or as such would not come within the ambit of Section 498-A IPC".
50 In the case in hand, factum of extra-marital seems to have acted as a sort of catalyst. However, such dishonest relationship, in itself, will not take the case of prosecution anywhere near the 'abetment'. There has to be some additional evidence on record to show that the accused had deliberately conducted in such a manner so as to compel his wife to commit suicide leaving no other option for her. Such evidence is clearly lacking here. The act of accused in having illicit relationship may show her disloyalty to his wife. It may be betrayal of faith but would not travel beyond the realm of being an immoral act to the territory of a criminal act inviting punishment under penal statute. It could have certainly given rise to his wife to seek divorce but will not fall within the ambit of sec 498-A/306 IPC.
51 Thus, there is not sufficient material on record to conclusively show that accused was responsible for abetment of suicide of Rajni.
52 In view of my foregoing discussion, I grant benefit of doubt to accused and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him.
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 15 of 1653 His bonds are cancelled. His surety stands discharged.
54 File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (MANOJ JAIN)
On this 26th day of November 2016 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC)
North-West District: Rohini: Delhi
Digitally
signed by
MANOJ MANOJ JAIN
Date:
JAIN 2016.11.26
11:54:40
+0530
FIR No. 1147/2015 PS Sultan Puri (State Vs. Vipin Kumar.) Page 16 of 16