Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Parmanand & Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)WLN598
ORDER Yamin, J.
(1). This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar dated 7.1.1991 by which he convicted the accused appellants for offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced both of them to the period already undergone which was one year eight months and seven days. No sentence of fine was passed.
(2). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a report was lodged at police station Bhirani by Leelu Ram mentioning that his daughter Meera Devi was married to Parmanand about seven years ago. A male child was born out of this wedlock who was of four years of age at the time of occurrence. It was further stated that Ram Kishan, who was the brother of appellant Parmanand, came at about 8.00 P.M. and informed that Meera Devi was suffering from colitis and, therefore, he had come to fetch Leelu Ram. Leelu Ram went with Ram Kishan and as soon as they were to reach the village Balwant was coming on a tractor met them and informed that the condition of Meera Devi was very serious. Thereafter they came back and from there a jeep was hired in which Udmi, Leelu Ram, Ram Chandra, Ramji Lal, Moola Ram, and his three sons went. They reached at about 2.00 A.M. and found that the dead body of Smt. Meera Devi was lying. The father suspected that she was administered some poison. The father made an inquiry and was told by neighbourers that Meera Devi did not suffer from colitis. A case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered and investigated. Both the appellants were arrested and challaned before the Magistrate having jurisdiction who committed the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sec. 304-B, 306, 498 A IPC and proceeded with the trial during which as many as 16 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Then the accused appellants were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. They produced two witnesses in defence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused appellants and sentenced as stated above.
(3). I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record.
(4). The short question before me in this appeal is whether the prosecution was able to prove offence under Section 306 IPC against the accused appellants? Offence under Sec. 306 IPC is defined as follows:-
"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."
(5). So it is to be found out from the evidence in this case whether the accused appellants abetted the commission of suicide by Smt. Meera Devi who committed suicide by taking poison.
(6). Learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention to Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act which is as follows:-
"113-A Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman-When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband of any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband."
(7). Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in view of this provision there is a presumption of abetment by husband and the mother-in-law when Meera Devi committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and both the appellants had subjected her to cruelty during her life time. These Sections read together bring out the following ingredients:-
(1) there should be abetment;
(2) the presumption can be drawn only when it is shown that the girl committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that the husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty; and (3) regard is to be kept in mind to all other circumstances of the case.
(8). The words "may presume" indicate that the presumption is rebuttable. In view of all this the evidence in the present case is to be seen.
(9). First of all I have to see as to when Smt. Meera Devi was married to Parmanand or in other words whether she was married within a period of seven years before her death. The first information report lodged by her father i.e. Ex. P/1, mentions that Meera Devi was married to accused appellant Parmanand about seven years before. No exact date has been given, Leelu Ram PW-1 stated on oath that she was married about seven years ago but does not tell the exact date. He states that he is an illiterate witness and definitely he would not remember the date of the marriage, but PW-2 Hari Singh tells the exact date of the marriage of Meera Devi as 20.6.1983. This date has not been denied by the accused appellants. It is proved beyond doubt that Meera Devi was married to accused appellant Parmanand within seven years of the date of occurrence.
(10). Now the question arises whether the accused appellants abetted the offence ? There is a report of State Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P/8 on record which states that on chemical examination of the portions of viscera and vomit soaked soil gave positive tests for the presence of monocrotophos (organo phosphorous insecticide). It means that Meera Devi had consumed some insecticide which caused her death. When did she consume it ? The accused appellants never knew about it rather when Meera complained of pain in her stomach, a nurse named Preetam Kaur PW- 5 was consulted who has been produced on behalf of the prosecution itself. She stated that on 28.4.1989 her husband who is a Registered Medical Practitioner had gone out. Daughter of Roop Raj came to her and told that Meera Devi was having severe pain in her stomach. Thereupon Preetam Kaur who is herself a nurse went to see her. She enquired from Meera Devi who told that she was suffering from pain in her stomach.
Meera described that the pain was continuing since morning. Thereupon Preetam Kaur injected Spasmedon and gave a tablet of Istemitel. It may be stated that these medicines are given in case a person suffers from pain in abdomen. According to the witness at that time the mother-in-law of Meera Devi was also present. The witness had treated Meera Devi on earlier occasion also and thus she knew her very well. This treatment part given by Preetam Kaur proves that either Meera Devi was suppressing that she had consumed insecticides or she had taken it accidently. There is no iota of evidence that any of the accused persons had at all administered the insecticides to her or aided/abetted her to take it. PW-6 Om Prakash is a Registered Medical Practitioner in the village and has stated that when he returned in the evening at about 5.00 P.M. Balwant came to him and asked him to see Meera Devi. Om Prakash immediately went and saw Meera Devi but found that her respiration and her nervous system had become very weak. He stated that at that time Meera Devi was unconscious. Thus, it is clear that it was tried to give medical aid to Meera Devi by the accused appellants. According to the learned counsel this is all in the rebuttal of the prosecution under Sec. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act and should be believed because there is no evidence that the accused appellants had at all abetted/aided the offence. PW-8 Dr. Om Prakash, who performed the post-mortem, has stated that monocrotophos gives a very bad odour and unless it is mixed in some other material it cannot be consumed easily. He further stated that possibility of consuming the insecticide by Smt. Meera Devi was the only possibility in this case. So when Meera Devi had herself consumed the insecticide and there is no evidence of abetment at all and the presumption against the accused appellants cannot be drawn in the circumstances when the accused appellants have tried to get her examined during her life time from the nurse and the doctor available in the village, I am of the view that offence under Sec. 306 IPC is not made out at all.
(11). So far as cruelty is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that cruelty was done to Meera by any of the accused appellants before her death. There should be evidence to the effect that husband or his relative had subjected Meera Devi to cruelty then only one of the ingredients of Sec. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act may be said to have been proved. PW-1 Leelu, who is the father of deceased, did not mention anything about cruelty in the first information report. He neither mentioned anything about demand of dowry which might have been the cause of cruelty. He admitted that son-in-law Parmanand never objected coming to his house. There was an allegation that there was a demand of a buffalo and of some golden ornaments but there is nothing on record in his statement that Meera Devi was ever subjected to cruelty on this account. She never complained of such a cruelty to him. It was PW-2 Hari Singh who stated that Parmanand stopped coming to the house of his in-laws because he was not happy with the dowry and he used to tell Meera Devi that golden ornaments and a buffalo were not given in the dowry. This is what Meera Devi had told. But this story appears to have been developed in order to implicate the accused appellants in this case because in his previous statement recorded by the police which is Ex. D/3 he never mentioned that Meera ever told of any cruelty to her. He simply presumed such a cruelty because Parmanand had not visited his in-laws house for quite some time. It is PW-3 Veer Singh who stated that after he saw the dead body of Meera Devi he had a doubt that Meera Devi was given beatings because of demand of dowry as the parents-in-law of Meera Devi used to demand golden ornaments, good clothes and a buffalo. He is a brother of Meera and has stated in the cross examination that he once went to leave Meera Devi to her in-laws house where she was given beatings as told by the neighbourers. This is all hear say evidence. Meera Devi never told that she was ever subjected to cruelty as he has not stated so even in his statement given to the police which is Ex. D/4 on record. Learned Additional Sessions Judge did not find the offence u/S. 498-A IPC proved against the accused appellants and rightly so. So unless there is evidence of cruelty no presumption can be drawn u/S. 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act.
(12). The other circumstances in the case do not suggest that the accused appellants abetted/aided the suicide of Meera Devi. Abetment has been defined in Sec. 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing, who firstly instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly engages one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing and thirdly intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Hon'ble Supreme Court keeping this definition in view in Mahendra Singh and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1) set aside the conviction of the appellants when there was no ingredient of abetment was attracted on the statement of deceased.
(13). In view of above discussion, offence under Sec, 306 IPC is not at all made out and consequently the conviction of the accused appellants is set aside.
(14). In the result, appeal stands allowed. A copy of this judgment be sent to Shri Brij Lal Bundel, at whatever place he is posted, so that he may again see the provisions of Sec. 300 IPC which prescribes punishment of fine in addition to jail sentence. This is for his guidance.