Himachal Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar And Another vs State Of H.P on 21 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 471 of 2010 Reserved on: 29.7.2024 .
Date of Decision: 21.8.2024
Suresh Kumar and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.9.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) were convicted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the order dated 22.9.2010, vide which they were sentenced as under:-
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) Under Section 498-A read To suffer simple imprisonment for with Section 34 of IPC. a period of three years and to pay .
fine of ₹10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each.
Under Section 306 read with To suffer simple imprisonment for Section 34 of IPC.
r to a period of three years years and to pay fine of ₹10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each.
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. It was asserted that the police received an information via telephone that Sharda Devi, wife of accused Suresh Kumar, had set herself on fire. An entry (Ex.PW9/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Chain Singh, ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) HHC Balbir Singh, Constable Sanjay Kumar, LC Suresh Kumari and LC Sudarshna Devi reached the spot to verify the correctness of the information. Purshottam Chand (PW15), father of .
deceased Sharda Devi made a statement (Ex.PW14/A) that Sharda Devi was married to Suresh Kumar in 2004. Suresh Kumar and his mother Tara Devi kept her properly for some time after marriage. They started beating her after some time. They did not provide her with maintenance and proper food. The informant provided a dowry as per his capacity. The accused Suresh Kumar and Tara Devi used to taunt the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. The deceased had also not given birth to any child. Hence, she was being harassed on this account as well.
Suresh Kumar and Tara Devi had beaten Sharda Devi in the year 2005 and she was turned out of her matrimonial home. The informant made a complaint (Ex.PW6/A) to Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Rajhyana, who called the accused but they did not appear. The informant dropped the deceased in her matrimonial home and he counselled the accused Suresh Kumar and Tara Devi; however, the accused continued to beat and harass Sharda Devi. Sharda Devi visited her maternal home on 14.2.2009 and expressed apprehension about her life in the presence of the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) informant, Shakuntla Devi, Sandla Devi (PW1) and Chanchla because she was being harassed and beaten in her matrimonial home. Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Rajyana informed Bhagwan .
Dass (PW16) on 15.2.2009 that Sharda Devi had put kerosene oil on herself and set herself on fire. She was compelled to take this step due to the harassment meted by the accused.
3. The statement (Ex. PW14/A) was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW14/B) was registered. SI Som Nath (PW-17) conducted the investigation. He got the dead body and the place of occurrence photographed and obtained the photographs (Ex.PW4/A1 to Ex.PW4/A5). An inquest on the dead body was conducted and reports (Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B) were prepared. An application (PW17/A) was filed for conducting a post-mortem examination of the deceased. Dr Anita Mahajan (PW7) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found that she had died due to antemortem burns injuries which were approximately 94% superficial and deep burns. She preserved the samples and viscera and handed them over to the police official accompanying the dead body. SI Som Nath collected burnt clothes, and bottles of plastic containing kerosene oil and sealed them in a parcel. He collected a matchbox ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) and two burnt sticks and sealed them in a parcel. He collected pieces of bangles and sandals from the place of the incident and sealed them in a parcel. He sealed parcels with seal 'K' and .
obtained a sample seal on a separate piece of cloth (Ex.PW17/C).
He filed an application (Ex.PW8/B) to obtain the opinion of the forensic expert. Dr. Atul Gupta (PW8) visited the spot and issued the report (Ex.PW8/A). Purshottam Chand produced a complaint (Ex.PW6/A) which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW5/A). The case property was deposited with HC Kashmir Singh (PW10), who deposited it in Malkhana and made an entry in the register (Ex.PW10/A). HC Sultan Singh (PW11) sent the articles to FSL Junga vide RC No. 23/9 (Ex.PW11/A) through HHC Swaroop Singh.
He deposited all the articles in a safe condition at FSL Junga and handed over the receipt to MHC on his return. The result of analysis (Ex. PX) was issued, in which it was shown that kerosene oil was detected on the plastic jar containing the burnt clothes of the deceased and the bottle stated to be containing kerosene oil.
No poison was detected in the viscera. The Doctor issued the final opinion that the deceased had died due to the ante mortem burn injury. Statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version and after the completion of the investigation, the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) challan was prepared and presented before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge for trial.
.
4. Learned Sessions Judge (Trial Court) charged the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses to prove its case. Sandla Devi (PW1) is the aunt, Purshotam Chand (PW15) is the father and Bhagwan Dass (PW16) is the uncle of the deceased. Surekha Devi (PW2) was the pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Bandi, where the informant and his family members were residing. Nirmala Devi (PW3) is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Rajyana, where the accused are residing. Anil Kumar (PW4) took photographs. HHG Pritam Chand (PW5) is the witness to the recovery of the application made by the victim's father to Pradhan Ram Lal (PW6). Dr. Anita Mahajan (PW7) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. Dr. Atul Gupta (PW8) visited the spot and prepared the report. Constable Kuldeep Chand (PW9) proved the entry in the daily diary. HC Kashmir Singh (PW10) was working as an MHC in the absence of regular ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) MHC. HC Sultan Singh (PW11) was working as MHC and sent the case property to FSL, Junga. HHC Swaroop Singh (PW12) carried the case property to FSL, Junga. ASI Manohar Lal (PW13) got the .
entry recorded. ASI Krishan Kumar (PW14) signed the FIR. SI Som Nath (PW17) conducted the investigation.
6. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case in its entirety.
They claimed that they were innocent and were falsely implicated. No defence was sought to be adduced by them.
7. Learned Trial Court held that the testimony of the informant was duly corroborated by Sandla Devi (PW1) and Bhagwan Dass (PW16). Their testimonies were trustworthy and reliable and nothing was elicited in their cross-examination to show that they were making false statements. The testimony of the informant was corroborated by the complaint made by him to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat regarding the beating of the deceased.
She had died due to ante mortem burn injuries. The death had taken place within seven years and a presumption of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act could be drawn. The defence version that the deceased was issueless and depressed was not believable.
Hence, the accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 8Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 )
8. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused have filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting .
and sentencing the accused. It was duly proved that the accused had tried to extinguish the fire by putting the blanket around the deceased. The deceased was attending the meeting of Mahila Mandal and Women Forum. She had not made any complaint to any person. The deceased's father admitted that the difference between the parties arose because she would leave her matrimonial home without informing any person. The prosecution had examined related witnesses and the independent witnesses of the village did not support the prosecution case. Learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
9. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel for the appellants/accused and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
10. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that the learned Trial Court erred ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) in convicting and sentencing the accused. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding the harassment are vague and general. No action was taken by Pradhan on the complaint made .
by the informant. The independent persons of the village categorically stated that the deceased was being kept nicely in her matrimonial home. This is also evident from the fact that she had not made any complaint to any person in her village, even though she was a member of Mahila Mandal and other Women's Forums. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Devender Singh Vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2023 (HP) (2) 1389 in support of his submission.
11. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State submitted that the witnesses have categorically stated about the harassment of the deceased. The statement of the informant was duly corroborated by the complaint made by him to Pradhan. There was sufficient evidence of cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused and the learned Trial Court had rightly applied the presumption of abetment of suicide to the present case. There is no infirmity in ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.
12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions .
made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
13. Section 306 of the IPC provides for the abetment of suicide. This Section was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC r to OnLine SC 216: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 329: 2024 INSC 156 as under:
"64. Suicide is distinguishable from homicide since it amounts to the killing of self. This Court in M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626 went into the meaning of the word suicide and held as under:
37. The word "suicide" in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however, its meaning and import are well known and require no explanation. "Sui"
means "self" and "cide" means "killing", thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his objective of killing himself.
65. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court delved into the meaning of the word 'instigate' or 'instigation' and held as under:
20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may .
have been inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
66. Thus, this Court held that to 'instigate' means to goad, urge, provoke, incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy the requirement of 'instigation', it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or that the words or act should necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. But, a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation in that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.
67. Again, in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (2009) 16 SCC 605, this Court elaborated further and observed that to constitute 'instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by 'goading' or 'urging forward'. This Court held as follows:
17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action; provoke to action or reaction" (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (see Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th Edn.).
18. Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) person to move more quickly and or in a particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such a person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with the intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing .
of an act by the latter.
68. Thus, this Court has held that in order to prove that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide by a person, the following has to be established:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, the presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
69. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court after referring to some of the previous decisions held that it has been the consistent view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative to put an end to her life. It must be borne in mind that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC would not be sustainable. Thereafter, this Court held as under:
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 13Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 )
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of .
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
70. Similar is the view expressed by this court in Ude Singh (supra).
71. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359, this Court after referring to Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC held as follows:
9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
72. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (supra), this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased .
into such a position that he committed suicide.
73. Sounding a note of caution, this Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73 observed that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case as well as 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 the 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 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."
14. This position was reiterated in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 519:2024 SCC OnLine SC 1701 wherein it was observed:
"8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation or an engagement or intentional aid to the 'doing of a thing'. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in a conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide.
9. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, this court explained the concept of abetment along ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) with the necessary ingredient for an offence under Section 306 of IPC as under:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part .
of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B. (2010) 1 SCC 707, this court explained the parameters of Section 306 in the following words:
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under .
Section 306 IPC."
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, while explaining the meaning of 'Instigation', this court stated that:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out.
Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation."
12. These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and 107 of the Penal Code, 1860 were reiterated and summarized by this court in the recent case of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC
200."
15. A similar view was taken by this Court in Devender Singh (supra) wherein it was observed:
39. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipin Jaiswal Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 684, held that the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused. It was observed from the evidence of the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) prosecution witnesses and in particular PW-1 and PW-4 therein that they had made general allegations of harassment by the accused towards the deceased and had not brought any evidence and specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the accused on the deceased. It was held .
that the onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -
"7. In any case, to hold an accused guilty of both the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and in particular PW 1 and PW 4, we find that they have made general allegations of harassment by the appellant towards the deceased and have not brought into evidence any specific acts of cruelty or harassment by the appellant on the deceased.
16. In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW 1 (the appellant) and Ext.D-19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry. In our view, the onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498-A IPC and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498-A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498- A IPC. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act that the appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304-B IPC, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498- A and 304-B IPC has been made out by the prosecution."
40. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vipin Jaiswal's case (supra), in the absence of any .
specific allegation, like, the date, or time of the incident much credence to the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 cannot be given, as the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was treated with cruelty and harassment by the accused persons in connection with demand of dowry.
Xxxx
56. A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions reveals that to justify the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC, the following ingredients must be established: (i) death due to suicide ; (ii) accused abets the commission of suicide.
57. The word 'suicide' is not defined in IPC. However, the meaning and import thereof was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangula Mohan Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) 1 SCC 750 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the word 'suicide' is not defined in the Indian Penal Code. However, its meaning and import is well known. The word 'sui' means 'self' and 'cide' means 'killing'. In other words, the act must have been so intended to push the deceased into a situation that the deceased is driven to commit suicide. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 17 held as under:
"17. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
58. What is abetment, was considered by the Hon'ble .
Supreme Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and another (2010) 12 SCC 190 and elaborated the meaning of 'abetment' in paras 25 of the judgment as under:
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.
26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day-
to-day life. The human sensitivity of each individual differs from the other. Different people behave differently in the same situation".
59. What is 'instigation', was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, and defined the meaning of instigation in para 20 of its report, which reads thus:
"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 20 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the .
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."
60. In Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave interpretation to the words 'abetment' and 'instigation' in the following manner:
"6. Section 107 I.P.C defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p.731, para1) "My mother-in-law and husband and sister- in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed, I want to die by burning."
10. This Court, considering the definition of 'abetment' under Section 107 I.P.C., found that the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 21 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) charge and conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased. This Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment is attracted on the statement of the .
deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said: (SCC p.620) "A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. 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 for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25th July 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 22 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) deceased 'to go and die'. For this, the courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. when reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant .
had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as annexure P3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him 'to go and die'. Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased 'to go and die', that itself does not constitute the ingredient of 'instigation'. The word 'instigate' denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or unadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. The presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or a spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25th July 1998 ensued by quarrel.
The deceased was found hanging on 27th July 1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25th July 1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27th July 1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25th July 1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27th July 1998 would itself point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taking place on 25 th July 1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped the notice of the courts below."
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 23Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 )
61. In Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect.
.
Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 and 17 of the judgment which read thus:-
"16. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, in Ramesh Kumar case (2001) 9 SCC 618, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation"
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation. 17. Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is "a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts"
(See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th Edition)."::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 24
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 )
62. In Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and another (2012) 9 SCC 734, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The .
abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. A continued course of conduct which creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide would satisfy the ingredients of instigation to commit suicide or abetment of suicide. It is apt to reproduce paras 16 to 18 of the judgment which read as under: -
"16. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, while dealing with a similar situation observed that what constitutes 'instigation' must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequences. A reasonable certainty to incite the consequences must be capable of being spelt out. More so, a continued course of conduct is to create such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide.
17. The offence of abetment by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abets and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abetted. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid as provided under Section 107 IPC. However, the words uttered in a fit of anger or omission without any intention cannot be termed as instigation. (Vide: State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh, AIR 1991 SC 1532; Surender v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 375; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2457; and Sonti Rama Krishna v. Sonti Shanti Sree, (2009) 1 SCC 554.)
18. In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight- jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 25 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) whether in a particular case, there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an .
inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.".
63. Similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others AIR 2015 SC 3351 and it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 9, 11, 12, 13 and 17 as under: -
"9. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, per contra, would contend that the High Court has justifiably quashed the investigation, for Haridath, the deceased, was holding a superior rank and there is nothing to suggest that the respondents had instigated him or done any activity that had left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. He has placed reliance upon Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659 and M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626.
11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P[4] by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect:-
"Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 26 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) 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 anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the 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 r offender 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."
12. In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 dealing with the expression of abetment the Court observed:-
"The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 27 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
.
13. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the lower rank.
That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the Advocate.
17. We have quoted in extenso from the said judgment and we have no hesitation in stating that the suicide note therein was quite different, and the Court did think it appropriate to quash the proceedings because of the tenor and nature of the suicide note. Thus, the said decision is distinguishable regard being had to the factual score exposited therein."
64. Thus, what can be taken to be settled is that the abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 28Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 )
65. In Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Versus State of West Bengal, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that harassment must be coupled with some positive action proximate to the time of occurrence. In the absence of proof of such proximate action on the part of the .
accused, he or she cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and for the commission of such an offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of the offence of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of offence of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by a person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. Paragraph 16 of the said report is reproduced as under: -
"16. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."
66. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh and another Versus State of Punjab, (2004) 13 SCC 129 has reiterated the legal position as regards Section 306 IPC in paragraphs 12 and 13, which read as thus: -
"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve the mental process of entering into a conspiracy for the doing of that thing. The more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 29 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of an offence under Section 306 of IPC.
13. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR (1994) SC 1418 this 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 the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given, society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
67. Therefore, what is required is that unless there is a positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused persons, which alone compels the person to commit suicide, conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. The legal position has recently been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mariano Anto Bruno and another Versus Inspector of Police, AIR 2022 Supreme Court 4994, wherein, vide paragraphs 25 and 26, it was observed as under:-
"25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police7 which are as under: -
"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are (i) the abetment;
(ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 30 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such an act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the .
ingredients of instigation/ abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."
26. In order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana8 observed as under: -
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of the cause of suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/ reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.
16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted the commission of suicide by ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 31 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, .
provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self- respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snapshot of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 32
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 )
16. Therefore, in view of the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased .
was left with no other option except to commit suicide.
17. Informant Purshottam Chand (PW15) stated that the deceased was married to Suresh Kumar in 2004. The deceased was kept properly for about 6-7 months but thereafter the accused started beating her. They also stopped providing her meals. She was beaten with the allegations that she did not perform any work and she had not conceived any child. He provided necessary maintenance to the deceased. He made a complaint in writing to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Rajyana.
Pradhan called the accused but the accused did not appear before the Pradhan. Pradhan forwarded the complaint to Police Post Ranital. The accused did not appear before police officials. They failed to compromise the matter despite many efforts. He visited the deceased once or twice a month and she used to make complaints about the behaviour of the accused. She visited her maternal home on 14.2.2009 to get some clothes to attend the marriage because the accused had not provided her necessary clothes and food. She disclosed in the presence of Sandla Devi ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 33 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) and Chanchla that she was afraid for her life. He provided her with clothes, groceries and money and she returned to her matrimonial home on the same day.
.
18. Sandla Devi (PW1) stated that the deceased was kept properly by the accused persons for about eight months but thereafter they started maltreating her. They used to beat the deceased and not provide her food and other necessities. Parents of the deceased were providing necessary articles of daily need.
The deceased used to take ration and other articles from her parents. Sharda visited her parents' house on 14.2.2009. She disclosed that the accused were beating her and they might kill her. She was consoled and advised to live in her matrimonial home. Ration, money and other articles were provided and she was sent to her matrimonial home on the same day. Gram Panchayat Pradhan informed that she had committed suicide.
She had not committed suicide but was set on fire and murdered by the deceased.
19. A perusal of the statements of these two witnesses shows that they do not corroborate each other regarding the circumstances of the deceased's visit to her matrimonial home.
As per the informant, the deceased had visited her paternal home ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 34 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) on 14.2.2009 to take clothes to attend marriage as no new clothes were provided to her. Her father provided her necessary clothes and food. Sandla Devi, on the other hand, has not stated anything .
about the demand for clothes by the deceased to attend the marriage. She has only deposed about providing ration, money and other articles. Both these witnesses stated that the deceased had expressed an apprehension for her life; however, they consoled her and sent her to her matrimonial home. It is difficult to believe this version. As per these witnesses, Sharda Devi was being beaten and harassed before the incident. The informant had earlier made a complaint to Pradhan regarding the beatings.
As per the informant's version, the matter was also reported to the police. The deceased had expressed a fear for her life but she was still sent to her matrimonial home. Had she been harassed and maltreated and her life would have been in danger, her father and aunt would not have sent her to her matrimonial home where her life was in danger; at least, without taking any steps to ensure her safety. When the deceased expressed a threat to her life, the normal conduct would have been to at least approach the Pradhan or the police telling them about the apprehension expressed by the deceased. However, this was not done and the ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 35 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) deceased was simply sent to his matrimonial home. This conduct makes it difficult to rely upon the version of these witnesses that the deceased had expressed an apprehension of danger to her life.
.
20. Sandla Devi (PW1) stated in her cross-examination that Sharda Devi died within 5 to 6 years of her marriage. She attended marriage and social functions with her husband and no demand was made by the accused during those functions.
Similarly, informant Purshottam stated in his cross-examination that the accused person attended the social functions after the marriage. He has not stated that any demand of dowry was ever made by the accused during those functions.
21. Bhagwan Dass (PW16) stated that the accused started beating and maltreating the deceased 6-7 months after her marriage because she had not conceived the child. The accused did not provide the necessary articles, food and clothes to the deceased. She used to take these articles from her parents' home.
She visited her parental home on 14.2.2009 and told that the accused had beaten her. He stated in his cross-examination that Sharda Devi had come to collect the clothes on 14.2.2009 to attend the marriage. He did not know how many days before 14.2.2009 Sharda Devi had visited her parents. He volunteered to ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 36 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) say that he was a labourer and remained out of his home. He admitted that he had gone out of the house to attend the work on the day of the deceased's visit.
.
22. The cross-examination of this witness shows that Sharda Devi had not visited her matrimonial home in his presence; hence, his testimony that Sharda Devi disclosed that she was being beaten in her matrimonial home is hearsay and cannot be relied upon.
23. to Nirmala Devi (PW3) was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Rajyana, where the accused were residing. She stated in her cross-examination that the deceased used to attend the meetings of Mahila Mandal and Women Forum and she was leading a normal life.
24. The testimony of this witness does not show that any complaint was made by the deceased regarding the beating or the maltreatment. She was the Pradhan of the area and since the informant had made a complaint to the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat earlier, she was the natural person to be approached in case of any complaint, beating or maltreatment. The fact that she has not deposed about any beating or maltreatment will ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 37 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) make it difficult to rely upon the prosecution's version regarding the harassment of the deceased.
25. Ram Lal (PW6) was Pradhan to whom the complaint .
was made by the informant. He stated that the informant had moved an application before him about the maltreatment of the deceased, however, the accused never maltreated the deceased.
He was forced to sign the application by the informant. He had not called the accused to verify the contents of the application.
He was permitted to be cross-examined and he denied the previous statement recorded by the police. He denied that he was making a false statement to save the accused. He denied that he had forwarded the application to the police. He stated in his cross-examination by defence that no action whatsoever was taken by the police.
26. The testimony of this witness does not support the informant's version that he (Ram Lal) had called the accused and the accused failed to appear before him. He has also not supported the prosecution case regarding the harassment of the deceased by the accused.
27. SI Som Nath (PW17) did not say that any complaint was received at the Police Station regarding the harassment of ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 38 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) the deceased. Hence, the version of the informant that the application was forwarded to the police is not supported by the statement of the Investigating Officer.
.
28. No person from the neighbourhood was examined to prove the harassment. The neighbours or the villagers were the best witnesses to depose about the harassment and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution due to their non-examination.
29. to Ram Lal (PW6) stated that a marriage was being solemnized and he had attended the marriage. He was taking the meals at 6.00 pm. He heard the cries and saw a lady burning in the verandah. Suresh ran towards his house and tried to extinguish the fire with the help of the blanket. His statement shows that the accused Suresh had tried to extinguish the fire which is not the conduct of a person who harasses and beats his wife. He stated in his cross-examination that the deceased was leading a happy normal life and the accused never maltreated her. His testimony also does not support the prosecution's version.
30. It is an admitted case that the deceased was issueless and was medically treated by the accused and Purshottam Chand.
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 39Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) Purshotam Chand (PW15) admitted in his cross-examination that he and the accused were worried due to the non-conception of the child by the deceased. They had provided medical aid to .
her. He admitted that the deceased used to remain sad due to the non-conception of the child. These admissions corroborate the defence version that the deceased was depressed due to the non-
conception of the child.
31. Complaint (Ex.PW6/A) made by the informant to Pradhan reads that the deceased was being beaten without any reason. No food and maintenance were provided to her. The informant used to provide food to the deceased and despite that, she was being beaten. She was beaten 5-6 times and nothing was provided to her. There was a danger to the life of the deceased and action should be taken in the matter. This complaint was made on 8.7.2005. The deceased committed suicide on 15.2.2009 after about four years of making the complaint. It is difficult to believe that a person who had a threat to her life would have resided in her matrimonial home for about four years without any further complaints. The fact that no complaint was made by the deceased or her relatives after making the complaint shows ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 40 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) that the deceased was not being harassed in her matrimonial home and the complaint will not help the prosecution.
32. The learned Trial Court was impressed by the fact that .
the witnesses had made consistent statements; however, the inconsistencies in the statements, as noticed above, were not noticed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court also failed to notice that the uncle of the deceased used to remain away from the home and he was making the statement based on the information received from other persons which was inadmissible in evidence. Sandla Devi had gone to the extent that she stated that the deceased was murdered which is not the case of any person. Thus, it was difficult to place reliance on her testimony.
In the absence of the corroboration by the villagers of the accused, reliance could not have been placed upon the statements of the relatives of the deceased when the statements were not supported by any contemporaneous conduct. The statements regarding harassment were general and the apprehension made by the deceased is not supported by the conduct of her relatives.
All these circumstances make it difficult to rely upon the prosecution's version that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty or that the accused had created such circumstances which ::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 41 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 ) made it difficult for the deceased to reside in her matrimonial home and she had no option but to commit suicide. Hence, the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the .
accused.
33. In view of the above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are entitled to a benefit of the doubt which is granted to them.
34. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court are set aside. The accused are acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC by giving them a benefit of doubt. The fine amount be refunded after the expiry of the period of limitation in case no appeal is preferred and in case of the appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
35. The accused will furnish the bail bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- each within one month to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court undertaking to appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of receipt of any notice as required under Section 437A of Cr.P.C. and Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS 42Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:7119 )
36. Records be sent back forthwith. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rakesh Kainthla) .
Judge
21st August, 2024
(Chander)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 21/08/2024 20:31:57 :::CIS