Delhi District Court
7 vs Unknown on 28 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03
OUTER DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 433/05
PS : S. P. Badli
U/s : 498-A/306/34 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 780742005
In the matter of
The State
Versus
Mahipal s/o Sh. Roop Chand.
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
...CONVICT
ORDER ON SENTENCE :
28.04.2012.
Pr.: Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the state.
Convict Mahipal in person.
Sh. R. S. Malik, Advocate for the convict.
Ms. Vandana, Advocate on behalf of the complainant.
Arguments heard on the sentence.
It is submitted on behalf of the convict that convict is aged about
48 hours, and he has wife and mother and two children to support. He is
only bread earner of the family and was gain fully employed in Delhi
Police as Constable (Driver). The convict is not a previous convict and has
clean antecedents. It is further submitted that the convict has faced trial for
about seven years and during the course of trial he remained regular and
co-operated in the trial and therefore, lenient view is prayed for.
On the other hand Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the state submits
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 1 of 43
2
convict is himself a police official who has duty to prevent offence but he
himself become party and has committed offence and therefore he be given
the maximum punishment provided under the law.
In this case the accused is held guilty for offence punishable u/s
498-A IPC. S. 498-A IPC provides punishment for a term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
In this case woman committed suicide and convict being the elder
brother-in-law (jeth) of deceased Sunita was found committing harassment
and cruelty. He is employed in Delhi Police. The convict is member of the
law enforcing agency and he earns his bread through enforcement of law.
It was his duty to prevent breach of law. He cannot become the party to the
commission of the offence and therefore no leniency can be shown to
the convict.
Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of case, I am
of the opinion that ends of justice would be met in sentencing the convict
to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of 3 years and fine of
Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable U/s 498-A. In default of payment of
fine, he shall further under go simple imprisonment (SI) for a period of
three months.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict
free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. on 28.04.2012
GURDEEP SINGH
ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/Delhi
28.04.2012
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 2 of 43
3
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03
OUTER DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
FIR No. : 433/05
PS : S. P. Badli
U/s : 498-A/306/34 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 780742005
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1. Satpal s/o Sh. Roop Chand EXPIRED & ABATED
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
2. Roop Chand s/o Sh. Late Sh. Mavasi Ram
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
3. Smt. Manisha w/o Sh. Kirpal
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
4. Smt. Kanta w/o Sh. Mahipal
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
5. Smt. Nanoo Devi w/o Sh. Roop Chand
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
6. Mahipal s/o Sh. Roop Chand.
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
7. Kirpal s/o Sh. Roop Chand.
R/o 311, Mata Wali Gali,
Village Siraspur, Delhi.
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 3 of 43
4
...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 354/09
Date of Institution : 30.08.2005
Date of Committal : 10.01.2007
Date of reserving judgment/order : 10.04.2012
Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. Accused Satpal, Roop Chand, Smt. Manisha, Smt. Kanta, Smt. Nanoo Devi, Mahipal and Kirpal were sent up by police of PS S. P. Badli to stand trial for offence punishable u/s 498-A/306/34 IPC being husband, father-in-law, sister-in-law, sister-in-law, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law respectively of deceased Sunita.
2. During the course of trial, husband of deceased Satpal expired and proceedings against him stood abated.
3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 10.06.2005, on the receipt of DD No. 13 A that at about 2:20 p.m. information was received from wireless operator that at house no. 311, Gali Mata Wali, Siraspur, Delhi a woman had hanged herself and on the basis of the same ASI Azad Singh alongwith Ct. Surender reached at the spot and found that one dead body of Sunita lying in the interior room of the house and in her neck chuni was found as ligature material and dead body was lying in floor and on her head there was blood which was spread on the floor and it was revealed that while she was being removed, ligature material was cut and her FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 4 of 43 5 body fell on the floor which resulted in injury which had blood. Body was stiff. Eyes and mouth were closed. One stool was found fallen on the spot.
4. The father of deceased Sh. Dharambir met and got his statement recorded that deceased was his elder daughter and she was married to accused Satpal on 15.12.1991. He had given dowry according to his capacity and upto three years of her marriage she was kept happy in matrimonial house and thereafter her husband Satpal and in-laws namely Nanoo Devi, Mahipal, Kanta and Kirpal started harassing her for bringing more dowry and used to abuse her for bringing less dowry and used to beat her. All the accused persons used to instigate Satpal and got her beaten from him. The elder brother of accused Satpal namely Mahipal had mini bus and he used to say to Satpal to make bus bigger and used to say him to ask Sunita to bring Rs.5 lacs from her parents. He said his daughter Sunita had disclosed this fact in June 1997. She also disclosed that her husband Satpal and brother-in-law Mahipal used to threaten her by showing knife and said that in case she does not bring money, she and her children would be killed. He in order to keep her settled in the matrimonial life gave Rs.20,000/- in July, 1997 to her husband and in-laws. Thereafter also their illegal demand continued and they kept on beating his daughter for bringing Rs.5 lacs. They also used to threaten him and his wife and also misbehaved with him. On this he gave complaint on 2.9.1997 with the police. Thereafter after about one and half FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 5 of 43 6 years their behaviour was normal towards the deceased but in the year 1999 again they started demanding money and started beating her and on one pretext or the other they used to beat her for bringing money and used to sent her to parental home and he gave sometime Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- to in-laws to keep her happy in the matrimonial life. In the year 2001, deceased Satpal had pressurized him and he had given engine of Eicher Tractor of Rs.1 lac. Thereafter after about one month their behaviour towards Sunita and them remained normal but again on 15.12.2003 brother-in-law of deceased Kirpal was married and all of them started harassing her to bring money from her parental home to construct separate house for them and property which was in her share was forcibly possessed by Kirpal and his wife Manisha. Manisha used to quarrel with her and abuse her and started beating her with her husband and Mahipal used to instigate them. Their demand of dowry continued to increase. He stated that he, his wife and brother-in-law Jagmohan tried to make them understand many times but their behaviour continued to be deteriorated.
5. He stated that about 10 days before the incident, she made telephonic call that Mahipal had beaten her. He counseled his daughter and pacified her. On 8.6.2005, Sunita again called him over the phone and told that all the people had made her life miserable and they are trying to evict her from the house and she had fear of her life and property. On 9.6.2005, Sunita again FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 6 of 43 7 telephoned him that all people i.e. father-in-law Roopchand, mother-in-law Nanoo Devi, brother-in-law (jeth) Mahipal, sister-in-law (jethani) Kanta, brother-in-law (dever) Kirpal, sister-in-law (devrani) Manisha and husband Satpal have collected and were troubling her and showed apprehension that anything might happened. On 10.06.2005 at about 2:00 p.m. Satpal informed that Sunita has hanged herself. He came to the in-laws' house after hearing this. He said that he is sure that deceased committed suicide after their harassment. On the basis of the same FIR u/s 498A/306 IPC was registered. Crime team was called at the spot and sample were lifted from the spot, wooden stool, old bangle made of brass, and bangle of glass were seized. Accused persons were arrested. Postmortem was got conducted. After the completion of the investigation, accused persons were charge sheeted for offence punishable u/s 498 A/306/34 IPC.
6. After supplying the necessary copies, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 10.01.2007 by Ld. MM.
7. My Ld. Predecessor, after finding prima-facie case, charged accused persons namely Roop Chand, Nano Devi, Satpal (now deceased), Mahipal, Kirpal, Manisha and Kanta for offences punishable U/s 498-A/306/34 IPC vide order dated 7.5.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 7 of 43 8 twelve (12) witnesses.
9. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :
i) PW-1 Sh. Dharamvir is the father of deceased and complainant. He proved statement as Ex.PW-1/A, seizure memos of blood sample, earth control sample and blood stained earth control as Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW-1/B and Ex.PW-1/C, dead body identification statement as Ex.PW-1/E. He is also witness of arrest of Roop Chand and Satpal and proved arrest memo of Roop Chand and Satpal as Ex.PW-1/F and Ex.PW-1/G, and their personal search as Ex.PW-1/H and Ex.PW-1/J. He also proved seizure memo of the articles i.e. danda, pieces of bangles, wooden plank and iron kamani from the spot as Ex.Pw-1/K, also seizure memo of stool and one brass bangle as Ex.PW-1/L and identified the above said articles as Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, P4 and P5.
ii) PW-4 Sh. Surender Singh is the uncle of the deceased.
iii) PW-8 Sagar @ Vicky is the son of deceased, however, he turned hostile towards the prosecution.
10. The prosecution also examined following formal witness :
i) PW-2 HC Balwan Singh the duty officer, who on the basis of rukka, recorded FIR of this case and proved the carbon copy of the same as Ex.PW-2/A. He also proved FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 8 of 43 9 photocopy of the DD No. 15 A as Ex.PW-2/B and made endorsement Ex.PW-2/C.
ii) PW-3 ASI Sajjan Kumar is the photographer with crime team who took six photographs of the spot and proved the same as Ex.PW-3/B (1 to 6) and proved the negatives of the same as Ex.PW-3/A (1 to 6).
iii) PW-6 Dr. Upender Kishore is the doctor who conducted postmortem upon the dead body of deceased Sunita and opined cause of death as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and proved the detailed postmortem report as Ex.PW-6/A.
iv) PW-11 Ct. Rakesh Kumar is the witness who brought the record of the complaint for the period of 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1999 and stated that the same to have been destroyed and proved the order to this effect as Ex.PW-11/A.
v) PW-12 Inspector Dharambir Singh Tomar similarly deposed that the complaint dated on 6.9.1997 has been destroyed.
11. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of investigation :
i) PW-5 ASI Azad Singh is the witness who initially reached at the spot on the receipt of DD No.13 A and recorded the FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 9 of 43 10 statement of the complainant and prepapared a rukka got preserved the dead body for postmortem. He proved rukka as Ex.PW-5/A, form 25.35B as Ex.PW-5/B and site plan as Ex.PW-5/C.
ii) PW-7 Ct. Surender Kumar is also the witness who initially reached at the spot alongwith IO on the receipt of DD No. 13 A and took the rukka for registration of FIR. He is also witness of seizure of articles from the spot and arrest of accused Roop Chand and Satpal.
iii) PW-9 SI Sugan Lal is the second investigating officer, who conducted investigation after registration of FIR. He is also witness of seizure of articles from the spot and arrest of Roop Chand, Satpal and Manisha and got the statement of Silky @ Sagar got recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC. In addition to other memos, he proved seizure memo of sealed pullanda handed over by autopsy surgeon as Ex.PW-9/A, arrest memo of accused Manisha as Ex.PW-9/B.
iv) PW-10 Retired SI Richpal Singh is the witness of arrest of accused persons namely Kanta Devi, Nanu Devi, Mahipal and Kirpal who were on anticipatory bail and proved their arrest memos as Ex.PW-10/A, Ex.PW-10/B, Ex.PW-10/C and Ex.PW-10/D respectively and their personal search memos as Ex.PW-10/A1, Ex.PW-10/B1, Ex.PW-10/C1 and Ex.PW-10/D1 respectively. He also proved CFSL FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 10 of 43 11 result as Ex.PW-10/E.
12. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons was recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused persons denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocence.
13. Accused Manisha stated that she is innocent and falsely implicated in this case at the instance of parents of the deceased and her involvement in this case is motivated. However, she chose not to lead evidence in her defence.
14. Similarly, accused Nano Devi stated that she is innocent and falsely implicated in this case at the instance of parents of the deceased and her involvement in this case is motivated. However, she chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
15. Accused Kirpal also stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case at the instance of parents of the deceased. However, he also chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
16. Similarly accused Roop Chand stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case at the instance of parents of the deceased. However, he also chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
17. Accused Smt. Kanta stated that she is innocent and she was living separately alongwith his husband Mahipal since 1987 and she had no concern with the married life of deceased. She has been FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 11 of 43 12 involved in this case by family members of the deceased and involvement in this case is motivated. Accused Mahipal also similarly stated so. However, they also chose not to lead evidence in defence.
18. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. R. S. Malik, Advocate for all accused persons and Sh. S. K. Grover, Advocate for the complainant. I have also gone through the record.
19. Before venturing on to discuss other witnesses, it is necessary to firstly discuss very contentious issue as to under what circumstances the deceased died. As per IO Azad Singh, he testified that on the receipt of DD No. 13A, which was recorded on 2:20 p.m., he alongwith Ct. Surender reached at premises no. 311, Gali Mata Wali, Village Siraspur, Delhi and found dead body of Sunita lying on the floor in a room on the inner side of the house and a chunni was found tied in the neck of dead body and the blood which oozed from the back side of the head of the deceased was lying on the floor and the deceased had also passed the stool/fecal matter. He also stated that one wooden stool was also lying on the floor. In his cross-examination he stated that he received DD No.13A, at Samaipur Chowk, at about 3.30 p.m. and he was told about the contents of the same on Phone by duty officer. When he reached at the spot, father of the deceased was present. The crime team had reached in his presence at about 5.30 FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 12 of 43 13 p.m. alongwith the photographer.
20. PW-7 Ct. Surender Kumar similarly stated regarding reaching on the spot and finding dead body lying on the floor, chunni tied on the neck. She was dead at that time and the blood was also noticed by them on the back of her head and blood was also lying on the spot. The father of the deceased also reached there. In his cross-examination, he stated that the site plan was prepared and he remained at the spot for about 45 minutes and returned to the spot at about 3:30 p.m. He stated that SI Sugan Lal reached at the spot alongwith him, when he came back to the spot with the copy of the FIR and rukka at around 4:00 p.m.
21. PW-3 ASI Sajjan Kumar is the photographer with crime team and he proved the photographs and its negatives. Photographs depict in the room there was a stool which had fallen, one centre table, sofa and one bed and dead body was lying between centre table, stool and the bed and blood was found lying on the floor on the back of head and hair which has spread about few inches from the head. As per rukka Ex.PW-5/A the dead body was stiff. Brief facts also finds mentioned that the dead body was stiff.
22. PW-6 Dr. Upender Kumar is the doctor who conducted the postmortem upon the dead body of deceased on 11.06.2005 and observed ligature material was chunni present around the neck, knot present on the left side of neck, slipping type knot and the longest arm of the material contains another knot and the ligature FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 13 of 43 14 was sharply cut of length about 119 cm, the ligature with mark 32 cm and neck circumference was 32 cm and the deceased was averagely built, rigor mortis present all over the body. Postmortem staining at the back and fixed, both eyes closed and mouth closed and tongue was caught between teeth and salivary stain present at the right angle of mouth and found following external antemortem injuries :
i) Ligature mark present around the neck infront and sides of neck for a distance of 26 cm. Above the thyroid cartilage, the mark was 1 cm broad in the midline and placed 5 cm below the extended chin. On the right side of the neck the mark was 1.75 cm broad and placed 4.5 cm below the right mastoid. On the left side of neck, the mark was faint interrupted. 4 cm.
Broad and placed 1 cm below the left mastoid. On the nape of neck the mark was 2.5 cm broad and placed 6 cm below the occiput. The mark was dry hard and brownish in colour.
ii) Dried abrasion of size 1.5 x 1 cm present below the left angle of mandible. Postmortem lacerated wound of size 2.5x1x0.5 cm present over the occiput. No bruising of the tissue underneath seen on exposition.
23. As per Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, the authoritative treatise, on the subject in the suicidal case, the tongue is drawn in, or caught between the teeth, or protruded and bitten. It is usually swollen and blue, especially at the base. Bloody froth is sometimes seen at FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 14 of 43 15 the mouth and nostrils. Saliva is often found dribbling out of an angle of the mouth down on the chin and chest. This is a sure sign of hanging having taken place during life, as the secretion of saliva being a vital function cannot occur after death.
24. The doctor stated that ligature material was chunni present around the neck, knot present on the left side of neck, slipping type knot and he further stated that dried abrasion of size 1.5x1cm present below the left angle of mandible which is almost the same place where knot was present. Therefore the same has been caused by ligature material. Therefore these evidences are consistent with theory that death was caused by way of hanging. Further the wound which had blood, there was no bruising of tissue. It would also show that this is a postmortem injury. Therefore there cannot be any doubt about the cause of death given by the doctor as antemortem hanging.
25. However, as per Modi Medical Jurisprudence, in general, rigor mortis sets in one to two hours after death, and is well developed from head to foot in about twelve hours.
26. In the present case, there is no cross-examination on the aspect that the dead body was stiff when the police reached. Further the doctor has observed postmortem staining on the back fixed which clearly indicates that dead body was brought down from the hanging position earlier as in case the same remained in hanging in vertical position for long period; the blood would collect on the FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 15 of 43 16 lower portion of the body and not on the back. As per the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, the time since death was 24 to 28 hours. The postmortem was conducted on 11:10 a.m. on 11.06.2005. It comes to 7 to 11 a.m. However, the information was given to the police at 2:20 p.m. as per DD No. 13 A. Although, the same DD is not proved but the same placed on record by prosecution.
27. PW-1 father of the deceased testified that on the day of occurrence accused Satpal telephoned him at about 2:00 p.m. and informed that Sunita had hanged. There is no cross-examination regarding the same. Therefore it appears that deceased had hanged herself but the information of her death was given after about 3 to 7 hours after her death.
28. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that deceased was fallen when she was being removed from the ceiling fan as the chhuni i.e. ligerature material was being cut which resulted in injury on her head from which blood oozed and scattered near her head. But none of the accused persons explained that as to who, with whose help whether knife, scissor etc., was cutting the chunni, and who were present at that time and as to why proper care was not taken while putting her down. It is also not believable that the dead body would fall in such circumstance. Accused Mahipal is working in Delhi Police, it is not expected of him to handle the dead body in this manner. Moreover, the burden of the same was FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 16 of 43 17 on the accused persons to explain the same under S. 106 of Evidence Act as this fact was within their exclusive knowledge as deceased died in four wall of matrimonial house, to which they failed.
29. Now coming to the offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC. Our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Hans Raj Sharma & Ors. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi [Delhi] JCC 2010 [1] 972 and after analysing law on the subject, observed as under
10. In order to succeed in charge under Section 498-A IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the appellants has subjected deceased Lovely to cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section. It is not every cruelty which is punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. The cruelty, as defined in the explanation to 498-A of IPC, is altogether different from the cruelty, which can be subject matter of proceedings, under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. The cruelty, so as attract penal provisions, contained in Section 498-A of IPC, has necessarily to be a willful conduct which is of such a nature that it is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grievous injury or danger to her life or health. The use of the expression 'willful' in the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC indicates that the conduct attributed to the accused, in order to be culpable, needs to be deliberate, aimed at causing injury to the health of the woman or bringing misery to her. If the accused knows or is reasonable expected to know that his conduct is likely to cause injury to the life, limb or health of the aggrieved woman or if his conduct is of such a nature, that causing injury to the life, limb or health can be a natural consequence for the woman, who is recipient of such a conduct, it will attract criminal liability on the part of the husband or his FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 17 of 43 18 relative, as the case may be. Everybody is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and such a presumption must necessarily be drawn even if there is no intention to cause any injury or harm to the woman.
Whether the conduct in question is likely to drive the woman to cause injury to her life, limb or health, will depend upon a number of factors such as social and economic status of the parties, the level of awareness of the aggrieved woman, her temperament, state of her health, physical as well as mental and how she is likely to perceive such a behaviour. If a woman is harassed with a view to coerce her or any of her relative to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, it will also constitute cruelty, as defined in the explanation to Section 498-A of IPC. Of course, the expression 'cruelty' would take in its ambit mental cruelty as well as physical torture of the woman. If the conduct of the accused with a woman is likely to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life and safety, such a conduct would attract criminal liability, envisaged in Section 498-A of IPC.
11. If the woman has harassed on account of her failure or the failure of her relatives to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security, that also constitutes cruelty, within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC. The expression 'harassment' has not been defined in Section 498-A of IPC, but its dictionary meaning is to subject someone to continuous vexatious attacks, questions, demands or other unpleasantness, etc. But, it is not harassment of every nature which is punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. In order to attract criminal liability, there should be torture physical or mental, by positive acts. Such acts should be aimed at persuading or compelling the woman or her relatives to meet an unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or it should be actuated by the failure FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 18 of 43 19 of the woman or her relative to meet such a demand.
30. In the light of above, we shall analysis the evidence on record.
PW-1 father of the deceased stated that in order to settle his daughter, he gave Rs.20,000/- to his daughter for giving it to her in-laws and after this, accused persons kept quiet for sometime but thereafter the accused persons again started harassing his daughter and his daughter told him this fact again and he made complaint to SHO and DCP. In the year 1999 again accused persons started demanding Rs.5 lacs and his daughter told this fact to him. He stated that he had given money even to Mahipal many times. He had given sometime Rs.10,000/-, sometime Rs. 15,000/-, sometime Rs.20,000/- and sometime Rs.25,000/- to his daughter for giving it to her in-laws. He stated that in the year 2001, he had given one engine of Eicher tractor of value about one lac to Satpal and after this for sometime her in-laws kept properly his daughter. He stated that thereafter in the year 2003 Kirpal got married and after that Kirpal and his wife Manisha had tresspassed on the first floor of the house where Sunita was residing. Theraefter all accused persons started pressurising Sunita to bring money from her house and to live in separate house. One plot measuring 200 sq. yards which came in the share of Sunita and Satpal in the partition and his daughter started constructing boundary wall on it and accused Mahipal gave slap to his daughter and said that he will take 100 sq. yards from this plot. Before 10 days of this incident his daughter called him on FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 19 of 43 20 the telephone that all the family members had started harassing her and said "mera jeena haram kar rakha hai". He stated that on 8.6.2005, his daughter again telephoned him and said that Mahipal, Satpal, Kirpal, Kanta, Manisha, Nano Devi and Roop Chand are trying to remove her from their house and they are saying that they not allow her to live in the house and giving beatings to her. On 9.6.2005, his daughter again telephoned him that 'Mere sath kuch bhi ho sakta hai'. On 10.06.2005 (sic) this incident happened.
31. PW-4 Sh. Surender Singh uncle of the deceased corroborated his brother PW-1 regarding marriage, and she was harassed by accused persons after three years for taking less dowry and it is stated that they used to ask Sunita to bring money from her parental house as they wanted to convert their small bus into a bigger bus and demanded Rs.5 lacs. They used to say 'kaise ghar se aaye ho, dahej kam laye ho'. His brother has paid various sums of money like, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on different occasions to Sunita so as to satisfy demands of accused persons. He also corroborated regarding engine of Eicher tractor given to the accused and that after marriage of Kirpal with Manisha, accused persons including Manisha started pressurising Sunita to bring money for construction of new house and they used to give beatings to her on this account. He stated that before 10-12 days prior to the death of Sunita, Sunita was given beatings by all the accused persons and they had said that they will not FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 20 of 43 21 allow Sunita to reside in the house and asked her to bring money. On 8.6.2005, he also received telephone call from Sunita and she told that all the accused persons have given beatings to her and he talked to his brother and his brother said that they alongwith some respectable persons will go to the matrimonial house of Sunita on Sunday. Again on 9.6.2005 he received telephone call regarding beatings and on 10.06.2005 this incident happened.
32. In cross-examination, PW-1 father of the deceased was confronted that he had given Rs.20,000/- to accused Mahipal in June, 1997, which was not recorded in any of his statements. He had not told to the police in his statement that after the marriage of Kirpal, he and his wife tresspassed on the first floor of the house where Sunita was residing. He had also not told to the police in his statement that at the time of partition of a 200 sq. yards plot accused Mahipal had given slap to his daughter and stating that he will take 100 sq. yards or that this fact was told to him by his daughter on telephone or that he is sending PCR over there and he had also not told to the police that about 10 days prior to the incident of death of his daughter his daughter had told him on telephone that all the family members were harassing her and that "mera jeena haram kar rakha hai" or that he consoled his daughter and stated that he will come to her house. However, he again stated that he had told the afore said facts to the police, to which he was confronted with which were not recorded so. He had not told to the police that on 9.5.2005, he had told his FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 21 of 43 22 daughter that he will come to her house on Sunday alongwith SI Jai Chand and Chandan.
33. He was further confronted with the portion of his statement that on 10.06.2005 when Satpal informed him about Sunita then he asked him to show her to the doctor and in reply he stated that all his family members are at home and thereafter he disconnected the phone.
34. He had, however, not told to the police that after one minute Satpal again rang up and stated that Mahipal has checked Sunita and that she has expired and there is no need to take her to the doctor. He had also not told that when he went to the house of Sunita then he found that accused persons had already made all arrangements for the last rites of Sunita and SHO was sitting inside the house. He had also not told to the police that Mahipal had ran after him to hit him but was caught hold of by villagers and he thereafter kept sitting outside the house and did not enter inside the house. He had also not told to the police that when he went to the house of Sunita then all the accused persons were present there. He had however told to the police in his statement that later on he sent message to Inspector Gurnam Singh through his son that he wants to get postmortem examination conducted on the dead body of his daughter and upon which the dead body was taken to the hospital, to which he was confronted with, which was not recorded so in any of his statement. He stated that he had FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 22 of 43 23 also told to the police that when dead body of Sunita was put into the vehicle, Roop Chand and Satpal were made to sit and then all the other accused persons ran away from there, to which he was also confronted with, which was not so recorded in any of his statements.
35. He further stated that he had also told to the police in his statement that Silki the son of his daughter came from some neighbourers house and told him that his mother was given beatings inside the house by the accused persons and that he was turned out and that his mother was asking for help by calling his name repeatedly, to which he was also confronted with, which was not so recorded in any of his statements Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/DX1, Ex. PW1/DX2 and Ex. PW1/DX3.
36. Regarding recovery of the articles from the spot, PW-1 father of the deceased stated that after about one week, the autopsy surgeon visited the spot on 18.06.2005 and at that time, he alongwith his brother Surender and police officials had also accompanied him. The doctor had inspected the spot and at that time he requested them to get the adjacent room opened which was laying locked and upon which the police officials opened the lock of the said room by producing the key themselves and inside the room, one danda of length about 4 ft. or so was found and some broken pieces of bangles were also lying there. The said broken pieces of bangles were of the same bangles which his daughter was wearing FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 23 of 43 24 on the day of incident. The wooden plank used in the cot was also lying there. Iron Kamani was also lying there. The said articles were taken into possession. He further stated that one wooden stool was taken into possession from the room where his daughter had committed suicide but he initially stated that the stool was seized on the day of death itself but again stated that probably it was seized on the day of inspection by the doctor. Upon being pointed out, he stated that one brass bangle and one glass bangle was also seized from the room.
37. PW-4 uncle of the deceased also stated that on 18.06.2005 he alongwith his brother Dharamvir, one doctor and police officials went to H. No.311, Siraspur, the room where the dead body of Sunita was lying was found locked and IO opened the lock and from the said room one wooden stool, one brass bangle and one bangle of glass was found. They were seized. He further stated that there was one room adjacent to that room and that room was also locked. His brother asked that this room should be got opened and that room was also opened with the key which was with the IO and from that room one danda and one wooden plank (used in the cot) and one kamani of iron were found and four pieces of bangles were also found and they were also seized.
38. PW-9 SI Sugan Lal stated that on 18.6.05, the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Upender Kishore visited the place of occurrence. He accompanied him there. Thereafter he seized one stool, two FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 24 of 43 25 bangles (one of glass and other was of brass), from the spot. From the room adjacent, he seized one iron Kamani (which is used in the vehicles for weight bearing), one bamboo stick, which is used in wooden cots and also one wooden danda (from the room of the deceased, which were given by the father of the deceased to them). From the said room, four pieces of glass bangle, were also taken.
39. However in his cross-examination he stated that he had seized the broken bangles and iron kamani on 10.06.2005 from the spot.
40. As per FSL result Ex.PW-10/E, these materials were also sent for examination. As per FSL result blood was present on stained earth, blood sample, wooden log and iron kamani. However on iron kamani and wooden danda, the blood was found degraded, neither the blood grouping could be given nor its origin could be given.
41. PW-7 Ct. Surender also stated that on 18.06.2005, he also joined the investigation of this case with I.O and visited the spot of occurrence along with the complainant and his brother. One wooden stool and bangles were seized from the spot. From the adjoining room of the room, where dead body was found, one bamboo cot (charpai ki bahi), one wooden danda and one iron patta were recovered and five pieces of broken bangles were also recovered and seized. However, he was not cross-examined on this aspect.
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 25 of 43 2642. PW-5 SI Azad Singh was cross-examined on this aspect and he stated that they remained at the spot for about 15-20 minutes and at that time he had not observed broken bangles, wooden danda, bamboo stick and kamani at the spot.
43. The testimony of the police witnesses are inconsistent with respect to the recovery of other articles in the adjoining room. Further the blood group on the recovered articles could not be found nor its origin could be found. Therefore the alleged recovery, after many days from adjoining house, does not inspired any confidence in the absence of independent witness. The doctor has also not stated so that he visited the house and articles were recovered.
44. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon as relative who were living nearby had not given statement nor they were accompanied at the time of incident. Further the children of other sisters of deceased were regularly visiting the matrimonial of deceased and she was sharing everything with each other but none of them come forward to make any complaint. It is further submitted that demand is vague in nature and some cruelties have been alleged against the sister-in-law (devrani) who have been married in the year 2003 subsequent to the marriage of deceased. Therefore no offence is made out. Further it is submitted that Silky @ Sagar was son of PW-1 who given statement u/s 164 Cr.PC against them FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 26 of 43 27 on the asking of the father of deceased but when he appeared in the court he stated correct facts that deceased was harassed by her husband who has suffered loss in the business and was in the habit of drinking liquor and she used to remain disturbed on that account and therefore she committed suicide.
45. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the testimony of Silky @ Sagar u/s 164 Cr.PC can be relied upon and cited Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2011 Crl. L. J. 2903. (Supreme Court).
46. PW-8 Vicky @ Sagar is the son of deceased. He testified that on 10.6.2005 his mother died. In the year of 2005, he along with his father and mother were residing at H.No. 210, Mata Wali Gali, Village Siraspur, Delhi and when, his mother expired, at that time, his younger brother Kartik was away to his Mama's place, due to summer vacation. He stated that his father used to take drinks regularly, and for this there used to be a quarrel between his father and mother. His mother used to be disturbed for the behaviour of his father and due to the harassment she committed suicide by hanging herself. On the day, i.e. 10.06.2005, when she committed suicide, he was present in his house. His father called at 100, when they came to know that his mother had committed suicide. Police also came there. His Nana and his Mama also reached there. He stated that at the instance of his Nana and Mama, he named my Dada, Dadi, Taya, Tai, Chacha, Chachi for FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 27 of 43 28 responsible for the death of his mother. All the accused persons were residing separately and they were not interfering in their life. He stated that his statement was also recorded before Ld. MM and identifies his signatures on Ex.PW8/A at point A & B and voluntarily stated that the statement was made by him, as he was tutored by his Nana and Mama. He was declared hostile by the prosecutor. He denied that his Mama and Nana had not tutored him to depose against the accused persons and also denied that he had made a statement voluntarily before the Ld. MM. During his cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, the court observed that the witness is just nodding his head to the questions, being put by the Ld. Defence counsel.
47. The statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of this witness was recorded after five days of the incident when he was in the care and custody of maternal grand father (nana) and thereafter his statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded after 12 days of the death of his mother Sunita in which he had stated that accused persons came down and taken her mother to the room and they were abusing her. At that time he was aged about 13 years and when he was examined in the court he became 18 years of old. He had nodded to the tune of defence counsel. The child was deposing against the accused persons when he was in the custody of Nana and when he came in the court to depose was in the custody of accused persons and started dancing to their tune. Therefore the testimony of such witness cannot be relied upon and is not trustworthy. Although as FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 28 of 43 29 per judgment cited Bhagwan Das (supra), the testimony even statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was relied upon as he was natural witness to turned hostile keeping in view the relation. However, in the manner the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC of this witness was recorded after five days and statement u/s 164 Cr.PC was recorded after 12 days of the incident, he was in the custody of maternal grand father and stated against the accused persons but when he was in custody of accused persons he deposed in their favour. Therefore the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out and his testimony is not worthy of any credit. The same is accordingly rejected.
48. Now coming to the submission regarding other relations have not come forward with complaint. PW-1 father of the deceased in his cross-examination testified that he had three daughters and three sons and deceased was eldest. He stated that all his children used to love each other very much and they used to share with each other in their happy moments or sorrow moments. He knows Ajit Singh Maan and his real sister Virmati is married to him. He knows one Jai Pal also village of Siraspur, who was teacher in the same school in Pooth Khurd. He stated that Jaipal Jaipal might be a good friend of his brother in-laws Ajit Singh. He admitted that present matrimonial alliance of Sunita with Satpal materialized through Ajit Singh and Jaipal. He admits that in the year 1991 accused persons were having three houses in Village Siraspur. He said that he did not know as to whether Satpal was a transporter prior to the marriage but he admits that a bus was owned by him.
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 29 of 43 30He did not know whether Satpal used to earn Rs.1000-2000/- per day or not. He said that he knew prior to the marriage that elder brother of Satpal namely Mahipal was a constable in Delhi Police and was married. Kirpal the younger brother of Satpal was studying in the school at the time of marriage. He admits that Satpal was having a three storyed house in Siraspur constructed over a plot of area 160 sq. yards and his daughter was shifted to the said very house after the marriage. He admits that accused Roop Chand retired as supervisor from DTC in 1989/1990. Kirpal was got married on 5.12.2003. He denied the suggestion that Kirpal after marriage shifted alongwith his wife and father to H. No. 125, Village Siraspur and voluntarily stated that he continued to reside in the same three storeyed house. He stated that he is not aware as to whether accused Mahipal used to reside in H. No. 37, Village Siraspur alongwith his wife and mother. He admitted that after the marriage of Sunita, his other children used to visit the house of Sunita on various occasions such as marriage, birthday etc.
49. He further stated that when his daughter was being harassed in her matrimonial home then he did not complaint to Ajit Singh Maan in this regard nor made complaint to Jaipal. Ajit Singh did not accompany him when he went to make complaint regarding the behaviour of accused persons in the year 1997. He admitted that he did not make any complaint between the period 1997 till 2005. He admitted that he does not know whether Satpal used to drink FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 30 of 43 31 liquor. He admitted that Satpal has expired but he does not know whether he fell down from the building in drunken condition. He also admitted that Jagmohan being the mama used to love Sunita lot and in the year 2005 he was having a mobile phone with him but he does not remember whether there was any landline connection in the house. He admits that Sunita used to talk with Jagmohan and her mother Krishna also. He stated that Virender used to visit Sunita at her house but Rahul and Nitin used to visit occasionally. He does not know whether birthday of Silki, son of Sunita, fell before her death or not. He stated that he does not know as to whether prior to the year 2005 Satpal suffered losses in his transport business and thus fell into depression or used to take liquor regularly. He denied the suggestion that Sunita used to quarrel with her husband almost daily on the issue of consumption of liquor by him and voluntarily stated that they used to quarrel otherwise daily on different issues. He stated that accused Mahipal used to make Satpal to drink liquor daily but denied that he used to feel inimical towards Mahipal on this score. He admitted that at the time of death of Sunita, Mahipal (sic) was still employed in Delhi Police but denied the suggestion that Mahipal used to remain on duty from 8:00 a.m. till 8:30 p.m. in the evening. He stated that he cannot tell any specific date, time, month or year when he had given any money to his daughter Sunita after her marriage for giving to the accused persons. She was harassed by the accused persons in June/July 1997 and in FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 31 of 43 32 December 2003 but he did not remember the exact date of any instance of cruelty and could not tell any other date, month of year specifically of any instance of cruelty extended to Sunita.
50. In his cross-examination, PW-4 uncle of the deceased stated on 8.6.2005 Sunita was given beatings by accused persons, but he had not stated to the police that he had received phone call in this regard nor he stated that he had received call on 9.6.2005. He was confronted with portion of his statement that accused persons used to say to Sunita "kaise ghar se aaye ho, dahej kam laye ho". He could not tell any specific date, month of year when Sunita was told them that accused persons are demanding Rs.5 lacs for converting their small bus into a big bus however, voluntarily stated that it happened after 3-4 years of the marriage. He cannot tell date, moth or year when his brother gave different amounts to the accused persons. He also could not tell the date or month of the year 2001 when the engine of tractor was given to the accused persons. He stated that he did visit the matrimonial home of Sunita during her matrimonial life whenever he used to pass through that area as his brother-in-law (jija) was also residing on that way. At the time of marriage of Sunita, they were told that accused Satpal was having a bus and admitted that at the time of death of Sunita, they had come to know that Satpal used to take liquor but they were not aware that he used to take liquor in large quantity.
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 32 of 43 3351. Merely because other persons and the children have not come forward to make complaint or have not been cited as witness by the prosecution, it does not mean that no such incident had taken place. This is a matter of culture of society where such issues are taken up and reported by the head and male member of the family. It also does not show that there was no such complaint and therefore they have not come forward. It is quality of the witness which matters and not its quantity.
52. PW-4 uncle of the deceased is consistent that PW-1 gave engine of Eicher tractor worth Rs.1 lac to the accused persons and that accused persons wanted the deceased to bring Rs.5 lacs from parental house for converting the mini bus into bigger bus and threatened her with knife for not meeting the demand and his brothers gave small sum on different occasion. Although there are certain inconsistencies as father of the deceased has tried to hide the fact that accused was having a bus and was drinking at the time of marriage. Only because there are certain inconsistencies, the testimony of a witness cannot be rejected and are reliable and trustworthy in respect of the above.
53. Now coming to the role of the individual accused. Admittedly the accused Manisha, who is sister-in-law (deveran) of deceased, was married in the year 2003 with accused Kirpal and allegations against her that she alongwith her husband had tresspassed and she had also taunt and joined with other accused in harassing.
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 33 of 43 34These allegations itself are not believable as she was a bride of one or two years when this incident had taken place and was much younger to the deceased. Similarly there are no specific allegations against father-in-law accused Roop Chand, mother-in-law Nano Devi, brother-in-law (dever) Kirpal and sister-in-law (jethani) Kanta except they had been named alongwith other accused persons.
54. As regard the role of accused Mahipal. All the allegations are against him. PW-1 has stated Mahipal alongwith other accused persons started demanding Rs.5 lacs as Mahipal was having mini bus and they wanted to convert it into a bigger bus and started harassing and giving beating to his daughter and in the month of June, 1997, when his daughter came to their house, she told all these facts to him and his wife and he gave Rs.20,000/- to settle her. He also stated that he made complaint to SHO and DCP. After this for sometime accused persons kept his daughter properly and in the year 1999 again all the accused persons started demanding rupees five lacs and his daughter told this fact to him. After this in order to settle her, he gave different sums of money. He also stated that he had given money to even Mahipal many times. Regarding plot which came in the share of Satpal and Sunita, he stated when she started raising boundary wall on it accused Mahipal gave slap to his daughter and said that he will take 100 sq. yards from this plot. Thereafter he had made telephonic call to the police. He also stated that he reached at the FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 34 of 43 35 house of daughter when she died, accused Mahipal ran towards him with a view to hit him. In his cross-examination he was confronted with portion of his statement regarding partition. He further stated that the incident when Sunita was threatened at the point of knife by Satpal and Mahipal asking for Rs.5 lacs and threat was extended to her to finish her off and her children in case of non compliance of demand took place in the year 1997 but he does not remember either the month of date of incident and he stated that he had not stated the year of the incident being 1997 in his statement to the police.
55. As regard the demand of Rs5 lacs by Mahipal for converting the mini bus into bigger bus and harassment, there is no cross-examination. He had also stated regarding having made complaint to DCP and SHO. However, as regards the slapping he stated that he had made telephone to PCR over 100 number and he also brought the copy of the DD, however, the same could not be proved for want of original. Therefore it has come on record that accused Mahipal was harassing deceased Sunita for bringing Rs.5 lacs for converting the small bus into big bus. It is also proved that Mahipal had misbehaved with deceased on the issue of raising boundary wall. The father of deceased although was confronted regarding accused Mahipal ran towards him with a view to hit but the facts remained that the statement of the witness given to the police is not an encyclopedia of entire incident and the portion which are necessary to constitute the offence are FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 35 of 43 36 recorded. Further The complaints Mark PW-1/A and PW-1/B, however, could not be proved as the original documents have been destroyed. However, the prosecution has examined two witnesses from record who stated that records have been destroyed. Therefore the complaint can be read as secondary evidence. There are the complaints that accused Mahipal had harassed his daughter.
56. The harassment can be mental or physical. Under the circumstance in which the information of death was given after about 3-7 hours and harassment of the deceased for want of Rs.5 lacs for converting small bus into big bus and also she was misbehaved by accused Mahipal and different sums given by father clearly establishes that accused Mahipal physically or mentally harassed Sunita deceased compelling her or her father to meet an unlawful demand of Rs.5 lacs and actuated on failure of to meet such a demand. There are allegations that he was having mini bus and wanted to convert the same into bigger bus and so harassed the deceased. Thereafter there were persistent demands. Although it is not specific but said demands were presumably made by the Satpal who has himself expired. There were harassments intermittently after 1997. If one demand is persisted with, it becomes cruelty which can drive a woman to commit suicide. The circumstance in which deceased has committed suicide and subsequent circumstance whereby the information was not given in time either to the police or to the parents of the FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 36 of 43 37 deceased would further show that the deceased was harassed and cruelty was committed on her. Accordingly offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC is proved against accused Mahipal. Since the husband has died, I am refraining for making any comment against him regarding harassment to the deceased by him.
57. Now coming to the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. In order to prove offence punishable u/s 306 IPC, our own High Court of Delhi in case titled as Ashok Goyal v. State, 2011 III AD (Crl.) (DHC) 185, Delhi High Court, Crl. Appeal No. 279/2001 26.4.2011 observed the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana 2008 V AD (S.C) 281 = 2008 (11) SCC 215. To quote :
7. Learned counsel....
Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. The said provision reads as follows :
306 ABETMENT OF SUICIDE : 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.
8. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In case of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.
10. Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 37 of 43 38 offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word 'instigate' literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offence is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. 'Abetted' in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence.
58. In the present case, presumption u/s 113 A is not attracted as marriage of Sunita had taken place 14 years prior to the occurrence. Therefore the prosecution is required to prove that offence as per S. 306 IPC without the help of presumption. It must be proved by the prosecution that deceased was instigated to do that thing or intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
59. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted no case is made out u/s 306 IPC and cited case titled Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [SC], 2010 [1] JCC 493, wherein it was held that in order to convict a person for abetment of suicide there has to be a clear FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 38 of 43 39 mens rea to commit the offence. In Sanju v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 CRI. L. J. 2796 (Supreme Court) wherein there was quarrel between accused and deceased and accused told deceased 'to go and die', it does not constitute instigation and presence of mens rea is necessary.
60. Ld. Counsel also cited judgment of our own High Court in case titled as Hira Lal Jain v. State 2001 Crl. L. J. 1212. The deceased was employed with the petitioner, suicide note was recovered. The content does not show that petitioner goaded, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged deceased to commit suicide. Hence the proceedings quashed.
61. Ld. Counsel also cited another judgment of our own High Court in case titled as Ashish Chaudhary v. State, I (2009) DLT (Crl.) 567. In this case, suicide note was recovered alleging that the petitioners are responsible for his death because some of them compelled him to return the loan taken by him even though they had been charging exorbitant rate of interest paid by the deceased. Regarding Ashish took a loan from the deceased but failed to return the same. Hon'ble High Court held that there was no abetment, charge was quashed.
62. Ld. Defence counsel also cited another judgment of our own High Court in case titled as Roop Kishore Madan v. State, 2001 [1] JCC [Delhi] 75. In the said case deceased had left suicide note, however, as per the suicide note it does not remotely suggest that FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 39 of 43 40 mother of deceased had incited the deceased to commit suicide.
63. Ld. Defence Counsel also cited case titled as Brij Lal & Another v. State, 27 (1985) DLT 356, judgment of our own High Court. In the said case, Hon'ble High Court similarly held that there must be instigation to commit suicide to stand charge. In the said case, there was dying declaration wherein the deceased had stated that her daughter-in-law wife of her son was calling her all sorts of bed words, not giving her food and also giving all sorts of troubles and her son also used to give her bad words at the instance of her daughter-in-law Kanti told her to die by drowning in Yamuna. The Court held that offence was not made out.
64. All the above cases were not directly in respect of dowry related harassment. However, case titled as Ashok Goyal v. State (Supra) is only with respect to dowry related harassment. In the said case, a woman alongwith her son were found dead with burn injuries, complaint was given by mother stating deceased daughter used to often complaint to her that her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and their husbands were not treating her properly. Deceased had also left one note wherein she stated that her husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and their husbands are responsible for her death. The court relied upon the observation of Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana and held that this would at best be a case where the appellant deserted his wife and did not take care of her and their child, the same cannot FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 40 of 43 41 be an act of omission or commission on the part of husband so as to instigate her to commit suicide nor can such an act be said to be an act of cruelty which may drive a woman to commit suicide.
65. Section 498-A IPC and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1088 held that Sections 498-A and 306, I.P. Code are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A IPC and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under section 498-A, I.P. Code, it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned.
66. Therefore although offence u/s 498-A IPC has been proved against accused Mahipal, in order to prove he had abetted the deceased to commit suicide, he has also to be proved that he had abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or has committed cruelty leaving her no other option but to commit suicide. The deceased was living separately with her husband and FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 41 of 43 42 son in a separate portion. The other accused persons were living separately. Although it is stated that Kirpal and his wife Manisha were living in one portion of the same house. Yet if deceased was living with her husband who has now deceased, it does not in show any manner the cruelty was to such an extend that she had been left with no other option and in case if it is so it was cruelty committed on her by her husband and not by the present accused Mahipal. Moreover, it has also come on record that husband of deceased Satpal was in the habit of drinking and had died subsequently by falling from the roof of his house. The MLC shows that alcohol smell was positive. It appears that he was under the influence of liquor when he fallen down. The cruelty even otherwise proved against the accused was not immediately before the death and could not have been the immediate cause of committing suicide. Therefore as per discussion above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove on record that accused persons had abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
67. Therefore, as per above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove their case against accused persons namely Roop Chand, Nano Devi, Kirpal, Manisha and Kanta beyond reasonable doubt and therefore they are entitled to benefit of doubt. They are accordingly acquitted of the charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. Sureties discharged.
FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 42 of 43 4368. However, prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s 498-A IPC against accused Mahipal beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly he is convicted for the said offence.
69. Let accused Mahipal be heard on quantum of sentence. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 21.04.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/Delhi 21.04.2012 FIR No. : 433/05, PS : S. P. Badli Page 43 of 43