Delhi District Court
State vs Akhilesh on 5 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF ARUN SUKHIJA: ASJ-03(EAST):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
S.C. No: 224/2016
State Versus Akhilesh
S/o Sh. Avinash Chander Singhal
R/o H. No. D-13, LG-2,
Dilshad Colony, Delhi.
FIR No. 104/2015
PS. Geeta Colony
U/s. 306 IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 21.05.2015
Chargesheet Allocated On : 28.05.2015
Court Presided over On : 22.07.2019
Judgment Reserved On : 29.03.2022
Judgment Announced On : 05.04.2022
::- J U D G M E N T -::
1.Facts germane to the present case, as revealed from the report under Sec. 173 CrPC, succinctly, are that on receipt of DD No. 15-A dated 20.02.2015, police officials reached the spot i.e. House No. 12/169, Geeta Colony, Delhi-31, where it came to notice that Versha Rani had committed suicide by hanging herself. Body of the deceased was already put in the PCR Van. Spot was got photographed and SDM was informed. Smt. Veena, mother of deceased got lodged her statement with SDM inter alia stating that her daughter Versha was remarried with Akhilesh Aggarwal on 14.02.2013 and out of first wedlock, she was having one male child namely Lakshya and out of second wedlock of Versha with Akhilesh Aggarwal, a girl child was SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 1of 27 also born out. It is alleged that Akhilesh was unemployed for the last about five months and pressurized Versha to bear all household expenses and also to deposit Rs.8,000/- per month in the name of girl child. Akhilesh was also used to beat Lakshya and pressurized Versha to send him to his maternal grand-mother. It is also alleged that Akhilesh was also having extra marital affairs with wife of his younger brother and said lady was issueless by that time and whenever said lady comes to Delhi from Pune, Akhilesh used to visit her despite objections of Versha and even two days prior to the incident, they have visited the house of parents of accused to sort out the matter but Akhilesh and his parents did not responded to the same and for all these, Versha was not happy and then committed suicide.
2. On the basis of statement of the complainant and circumstances, present FIR bearing No. 104/2015 under Sections 498-A/306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") was registered against the accused.
3. During investigation of the present matter, post-mortem on the body of deceased was also got conducted and proceedings were conducted; accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed against the accused before the Court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A/306 IPC.
4. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in Short "CrPC") by the Court of learned MM, case was committed to the court of Sessions, as the offence under Sec. 306 SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 2of 27 IPC is exclusively triable by it.
5. Vide order dated 01.07.2015, passed by the ld. predecessor, charge under Sec. 498-A IPC and also 306 IPC was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove the prosecution case, it took help of fifteen witnesses and out of them - PW-1 Veena; PW-2 Om Prakash; PW-3 Bharati; PW-4 Kishor Kumar: PW-5 Shri Vivek V. Mishra; PW-7 Madan Mohan; PW-8 Jyoti Budhiraja; PW-9 Sh. Kaishul Budhiraja and PW- 10 Chandni are material witnesses while other witnesses are either of police officials or of formal in nature.
7. Vide statement recorded under Sec. 294 CrPC on 15.10.2018 did not dispute the contents of various documents including post-mortem report, FSL report as Ex, C1 & C2 including the proceedings of MHCM. Detailed testimonies of witnesses concerned will be discussed at appropriate stage.
8. Statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC and the incriminating evidence was put to him during the said statement. Accused pleaded his innocence and further pleaded that relationship between the couple were very cordial and both of them were living as being happily couple. He further pleaded, it was agreed between them that Versha would bear the expenses of her parents and even he (accused) contributed towards the monetary expenses of parents of Versha. Accused further pleaded that father of Versha was alcoholic and even demanded alcohol many times from him but he refused for the same being totally against it. It was also pleaded by accused that in SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 3of 27 fact, parents of Versha wanted that Lakshya would remain with them so that they may not point-out that they do not have any son, but Versha and he (accused) were against it. Even parents of Versha were in the habit of taking the child from the cab which was fixed for pick and drop to his house and even Versha was annoyed for the same and under pressure, where Lakshya is to be kept. Even cab driver of Lakshya complaint the accused and Versha many times that where he has to drop Lakshya. During the period of last visit when Versha was with her parents, he (accused) visited her parental house many times in a happy mood and he did not know the reason why Versha committed suicide despite his full love and support and further pleaded that he is of the view that Versha committed suicide as she was under the pressure of financial burden as two of her sisters were unmarried at the time of his marriage with Versha and even one was unmarried on the date of her death. The accused further submitted that even at the time of birth of their girl child, parents of Versha was not happy and they did not like the said daughter stating that they have already daughters and this disliking is to the extent that Versha never took said girl to her parental home for the sake of happiness of her parents. Even today Lakshya is in the custody of the parents of deceased and they have filed the suit for his custody. Further, accused pleaded that one key of the rented room was with Versha and after her death, parents of the Versha visited the said accommodation and took various articles including credit card of the accused from there. Credit card was used by parents of the Versha and even amount was SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 4of 27 withdrawn. The case was also filed for the said incident by the accused.
9. Accused opted to lead Defence Evidence and in support of his defence, he produced total seven witnesses in his defence including himself as DW-7.
10. DW-1 Shri Rajat Tiwari; DW-2 Raghvendra Kumar and DW-5 are bank officials who proved the bank records of accused and deceased.
11. DW-3 Shankar Sundaraman, Consultant Nature Healz proved the documents to the effect that accused was working with the said firm.
12. DW-4 Dr. Garima Singh and DW-6 Dr. Jyoti Aggarwal are sister-in-
law and sister of the accused respectively while DW-7 is accused himself and put his case and also placed on record various documents as Ex.DW7A to 7/P. The detailed testimony of these witnesses concerned will be discussed at appropriate stage of the judgment.
13. This Court has heard learned Addl. PP for the State and ld. defence counsel as well and also scrutinized the record.
14. Learned Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has been able to prove the charge through evidence of all material witnesses coupled with other material on record. He also submitted that there is no dispute about the unnatural death of a young lady with two minor children and no plausible reason has been furnished for committal of suicide by a young lady, if she was having cordial relations with her husband. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that admittedly no complaint was ever lodged by deceased or her parents before her death but it is admitted position of our society that every parents and even bride SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 5of 27 made every efforts for happiness of couple and complaint was made only as last resort. It is also submitted by ld. Addl. PP that it is also to be seen that this was second marriage after divorce of the deceased and this also makes the position worsen especially in the case of the girls and this may also be one of the reason for not lodging any complaint before her death. Ld. Addl. PP further stated that there are clear and specific allegations against the accused for maltreatment and even pressurizing the deceased to bear the expenses and put money in the account of girl child and even allegations of extra marital relations are also against the accused. Ld. Addl. PP further contended that all these circumstances fully proved the case of prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP, thus, prayed for conviction to the accused.
15. Per contra, learned defence counsel submitted that first of all, it is well observed in catena of judgments that the evidence tendered by defence cannot always be termed to be a tainted one and defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution and further that the issue of credibility and the trustworthiness also to be attributed to be at par with that of the prosecution witnesses and for this he has placed reliance on the cases reported as - 2002 (1) JCC 385 (Supreme Court of India) State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh Anil Sharma & Ors Vs. State of Jharkhand [2004 (3) RCR (Cri) 774] . He also took the attention of the court towards the cases reported as Ajay Goswami V. State 2011 (2) 1279 and Dudh Nath Pandey V. State of UP, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 911 wherein observations were made as defence witnesses are entitled to SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 6of 27 equal treatment with those of the prosecution and courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses. Quite often they tell lies but so do the prosecution witnesses.
16. Apart from that, ld. defence counsel contended that case of the prosecution is full of contradictions and improvements which is a major blow on the prosecution case. He further submitted that mere death/committal of suicide by a lady cannot be treated as the offence punishable under Sec. 498-A/306 IPC. Qua contention of second marriage, ld. defence counsel submitted that it was remarriage of both parties and now-a-days it is not taboo and particularly when lady was a working lady.
17. One of the contentions of ld. defence counsel is that as per the statement of the complainant, accused was unemployed and said fact is self-contradictory with the record produced by the accused and that even debit of the amount from the accounts of Versha and later on use of ATM Credit card of the accused- all this itself casts a doubt on the prosecution story and strengthen the case of the accused that parents of the deceased have an evil eye on the accounts of Versha for their financial needs and also want the custody of the male child of Versha and Versha was under pressure for all these and that may be reason for committal suicide by her. Besides the above, it is also submitted by ld. defence counsel that if there was any issue, as alleged by the prosecution, deceased was having every opportunity to make/lodge complaint whatever suits her as she was a working lady with District Courts, Delhi having full knowledge of her rights and even police SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 7of 27 picket was very much available near to her matrimonial home and deceased could come forward with any complaint, if it was so and all this shrouded with doubts.
18. One of the contentions of the ld. defence counsel is that even at the time of last visit and stay of Versha at parental home before her death, she moved an application for government accommodation and even mentioning of address of parents of the accused, is clear indication that relations between the couple were cordial and they want to reside together and story has been cooked up only with a view to harass the accused and take custody of the male child.
19. Besides the above, ld. defence counsel drew the attention of the court towards statements of PW-9 Kaishul Budhiraja and PW-10 Chandni contending that both these witnesses were declared hostile and this is another major blow to the prosecution case. Moreover, ld. defence counsel also drew the attention of the court towards some lacunae as non-seizure of Chunni with which deceased allegedly committed suicide or sent to FSL etc to seek opinion whether suicide can be committed with the help of said Chunni; non placing of photographs of the deceased or non-joining of any independent witness qua broking of the door and deceased taken out from the hanging bed etc. stating that all this also raised finger towards fair investigation conducted in the manner further stating that each criminal case has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and if two views are possible, benefit of the same must be given to the accused and thus, prayed for acquittal of the accused persons. The Ld. Defence counsel has also SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 8of 27 relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-
(i) State of Haryana Vs. Rm Sewak and Ors. 2007 (3) Crimes (P & H);
(ii) Satpal Vs. State of Haryana, 1998 (1) ACR 482 (SC):
MANU/SC/1081/1998;
(iii) State of Karnataka Vs. H.S. Srinivasa Iyengar and Ors.
1996 (2) ALT (Crl.)12; MANU/KA/0135/1996;
(iv) Leela Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 48 ACrC 698;
(v) Gurucharan Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan, (2003) 3 AIC 651;
(vi) Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab Crl. Appeal No. 40 of 2011 decided on 01.10.2020 by Hon'ble Apex Court;
(vii) Kranti Mishra and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr., Case -
42600 of 2018 decided on 22.01.2021 by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and
(viii) Allahabad High Court - Local news.
20. I have considered the rival submissions and scrutinized the record with judgments on the point in issue in the case.
21. First of all, court will deal with the contention of ld. defence counsel qua testimony of defence witnesses. Undisputedly, the evidence tendered by defence witnesses cannot always be termed to be a tainted one and defence witnesses are also entitled to equal treatment and equal respect as that of the prosecution witnesses and for holding this view, court is taking support of observations made in catena of SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 9of 27 judgments of various courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the cases relied upon by ld. defence counsel without any dispute to those aspects with further caution that it is also to be kept in mind that their testimony should inspire confidence. The testimonies of the defence witnesses qua their credibility will be considered later on with other material on record placed and produced on record.
22. Qua another contention raised by learned defence counsel about lacunae like non seizure of Chunni and no opinion for the same etc. in this context, Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 1850 titled Ram Bihari Yadav V State of Bihar & Ors. observed as under:-
"....If primacy is given to a designed or negligent investigation, or to the omissions or lapses created as a result of a faulty investigation, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency, but also in the administration of justice...."
and as such, faulty investigation or lacunae cannot be ground for the acquittal of the accused, if case proves otherwise.
23. Without commenting upon on all these aspects i.e. about faulty investigation and defence witnesses, court has to see the truthfulness of the witnesses to see whether the prosecution has able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts or not.
24. In the present matter, accused has been charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A IPC and also 306 IPC. As mentioned above, to prove the prosecution case, it took help of various witnesses i.e. PW1 to PW4 and also PW7 to PW10. It is also clear from the record that PW-9 and PW-10 were declared hostile and both of them SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 10of 27 did not support the prosecution case despite lengthy cross-examination conducted on them.
25. Qua contention of ld. Addl. PP that they did not support the prosecution story only because of the reason that by that time petition seeking quashing of the present FIR was filed is of no value as it is admittedly, both of these witnesses despite close relatives i.e. real sister and brother-in-law (jeeja) of the deceased did not support the prosecution story on any count except that deceased and accused were a married couple.
26. Now, Court left with the testimonies of PW1 to 4 and PW7 & 8. All these witnesses are close relatives of deceased being mother, father, sisters or uncles of deceased. Their testimonies shall be tested on touchstone to find-out their credibility and trustworthiness. In the statement recorded by SDM, the first contention of the mother of the deceased on the basis of which present FIR has been lodged was that accused was unemployed for the last about 4-5 months since the day of death of Versha. This witness also reiterated this fact in her statement recorded before this Court on 22.09.2015. Accused took the defence that he was employed and having much source of income throughout the period before and after his marriage with Versha. DW- 3 Sh. Shankar Sundaraman appeared as a witness in dock to prove the defence of accused and proved documents Ex.DW-3/A to Ex.DW-3/C wherein, it is specifically mentioned that accused was working with the said firm and was earning money. Apart from that, DW-2 Raghvendra Kumar, Assistant Manager, AXIS Bank proved the SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 11of 27 documents Ex.DW-2/A i.e. the account of accused for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2013 to 20.02.2015, which reflects that amount was being credited in the account of accused, which demolishes the contention of prosecution witnesses qua unemployment or non-earning of accused.
27. There is allegation against the accused that he was having illicit relationship with her sister-in-law i.e. Garima wife of his younger brother. The said allegation is not supported by any of the independent evidence/witness/documentary evidence. The witnesses who have deposed are hearsay witnesses and they themselves have not seen the accused meeting with Garima at an isolated place. There is no complaint/case, which was made/filed by Dr. Vijay Aggarwal i.e. brother of accused either against the accused or Garima that they have illicit relationship. It is not the case of prosecution that brother of the accused has allowed such relationship to carry on and the same was well within his knowledge. No prudent person or reasonable person can allow such an illegal and illicit relationship. If, the witnesses i.e. relatives of the deceased person made allegations about the said illicit relationship, then, they ought to have given some concrete evidence against the accused. The prosecution has also failed to even collect the CDRs or any other independent evidence/witness to even connect the illicit relationship of accused with his sister-in-law Garima. The sister Jyoti Aggarwal and Garima, sister-in-law of the accused Akhilesh entered into witness box and they have categorically denied the said relationship between them. Garima has deposed that she is happily married woman with a three years old daughter and there is no SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 12of 27 grievance between her and her husband and she treats the accused as her elder brother. Today, it is IT world, the prosecution ought to have placed at-least certain materials like CDRs, photographs, Whatsapp messages, SMS, Facebook, Instagram, etc. to even show that there was some illicit relationship or they were constantly in touch with each other but the prosecution has miserably failed to do so. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the said allegations against the accused.
28. The prosecution has also tried to link suicide with the incident dated 18.02.2015. The witness i.e. relatives of the deceased have contended that they have visited the residence of the parents of accused on 18.02.2015 in order to pacify the matter but all in vain. There are major contradictions in the cross-examination of various witnesses with respect to the said incident. PW-3 i.e. Bharti has admitted that in the statement to the police, it is nowhere mentioned that Versha had accompanied them. In the cross-examination, it is contended by PW-3 Bharti i.e. sister of the deceased that they have gone to the house of accused to pacify the matter in their private car at about 6- 6.30 p.m. She has categorically stated that at that time, the accused was residing separately in his house. PW-7, who is alleged to have accompanied the parents and sister of the deceased, has categorically admitted in is cross-examination that they have visited the house of father of the accused to resolve the dispute at about 2-3 p.m. and at that time, Akhilesh was not even present there. PW-3 Bharti has specifically stated that they have gone to the house at about 6-6.30 p.m. and PW-7 SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 13of 27 has stated that they have gone to the house of parents of the accused at about 2-3 p.m. It is a major contradiction between the witnesses. Further, PW-8 has stated in her cross-examination that they have gone to the house of accused Akhilesh in the evening hours at 7-8 p.m. Some witnesses have deposed that they have gone to the house of accused, which is a separate house and some witnesses have deposed that they have gone to the house of parents of accused. PW-3 Bharti has stated the time at about 6-6.30 p.m. PW-7 has stated the time of 2:00-300 p.m. and PW-8 has stated that the time was 7-8 p.m. PW-7 has stated that the accused was not even present, however, other witnesses have stated that the accused was present at the house on that date. All are the relatives of deceased and they have made contradictory statements against each other. PW-1 has admitted that in the statement given to the SDM i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, on which FIR was lodged, wherein, the visit of 18.02.2015 was not recorded. The visit of the said persons on 18.02.2015 on face of it appears to be doubtful from different versions, which were made by the different witnesses qua the same fact.
29. The accused has also proved on record from the bank account of deceased Versha that she was having much more amount i.e. Rs.90,000/- in her saving bank account at the time of her death compared to what was existing in her account prior to the marriage i.e. Rs.10,000/- in her saving bank account. There is ample evidence on the record that father and relatives of the deceased have entered into the flat of accused when he was arrested in connection with the SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 14of 27 present case. There is no dispute that deceased Versha was having the second key of the matrimonial home/rental accommodation. Father and other relatives of the deceased had used the said key and barged into the house of the accused person in his absence. In the cross- examination, it is admitted by PW-2 that he along with 4-5 persons entered the rented room and brought the articles from there after opening the lock of the said room. It is also admitted that the said persons have also brought one credit card in the name of accused and it is categorically admitted by PW-1 and PW-2 that they have withdrawn a sum of Rs.11,000/-. At one occasion, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was withdrawn and at the second occasion, Rs.1,000/- was withdrawn. PW-1, during her cross-examination, stated that they were in need of money to pay the fees of Lakshya, therefore, the said credit card was used and Rs.11,000/- were paid out of the credit card to pay the fees of Lakshya. It is also admitted by PW-1 and PW-2 that FIR No. 490/2015, dated 28.03.2015, P.S. Seema Puri, under Section 380 IPC was also lodged against PW-2 regarding the said incident. It is the contention of PW-1 and PW-2 that they do not know that the said credit card belongs to the accused, however, they have admitted that on the credit card itself, the name of accused was written. It is also admitted by them that they have entered into the house after the death of deceased Versha. Even if, for the sake of arguments, the said credit card belongs to deceased, still PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be allowed to take the money of deceased and they have to follow the proper procedure. This shows that the parents of deceased were in dire SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 15of 27 financial need and help and they were not having money to pay the fees of the minor Lakshya. It is also admitted by PWs that prior to the marriage, the deceased Versha used to financially help them. Keeping of Versha with them for the purpose of financial needs cannot be ruled-out looking into the conduct of the parents of deceased. It may be one of the reasons that they may not be allowing Versha to lead a peaceful matrimonial life with the accused. There are sufficient photographs which are placed on the record and during cross- examination, it has been admitted that the accused has taken the sister of deceased Versha along with them to Vaishno Devi for trip. The said photographs are admitted photographs by PW-1 and PW-2 and which reflect the intimacy which the accused has with the minor child Lakshya and also with deceased Versha.
30. During cross-examination as well as while narrating the defence, the accused has categorically stated that prior to the marriage, Versha had worked for about 2½ years and after marriage, she had worked only for a period of two years. There is no dispute that the deceased Versha was having three sisters only and they were not having any brother. The conduct of the parents from the cross-examination appears to be that they want to keep Lakshya/Laksh with them. The possibility of Versha being under stress and pressure on that issue also cannot be ruled-out. It is categorically stated by the accused person that the parents and unmarried sisters of Versha had picked Lakshya from his school without informing to anyone including Versha and Versha used to phone her sister-in-law Jyoti to pick the minor daughter Phalak SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 16of 27 from the Creche as she has to go to her parental home. This was the usual course of things which may have pressurized the deceased Versha. It is the contention of the accused and he has also given the evidence that Versha left the matrimonial home on the pretext that she wants to resolve the issue of Lakshya with her parents and further he was in touch with Versha on phone till 15.02.2015. He has stated that on 14.02.2015 on their marriage anniversary, they have talked to each other. There is also no dispute that the sisters of the deceased Versha used to tie Rakhi to minor Lakshya. It has also come on record during cross examination that Lakshya is with parents of the deceased when he was about 6 months old. The cross examination of PWs also shows that the parents of the deceased used to take Lakshya with them without permission of the accused and deceased Versha. It has also come in the cross examination that after the death of the Versha the parents of Versha has not seen even once the minor daughter Phalak which was born out of the wed-lock of the accused and Versha. This also supports the version of the accused that parents were not happy when the girl child was born out from the wedlock of accused and deceased Versha. If, the male child would have born then the parents of the deceased Versha could have easily taken Lakshya into their custody from Versha. Considering the totality of the facts & circumstances of the present case, it cannot be ruled out that the parents of deceased wanted to adopt Lakshya as they were not having any male child and were having four daughters and on this account, Versha may be under mental stress and pressure.
SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 17of 27
31. The governance of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is abetting suicide. Section 107 IPC defines abetment as comprising -
1. Instigation to commit the offence;
2. Engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence and
3. Aiding the commission of an offence.
32. In Ramesh Kapoor Vs. State of Chattisgarh 2001(9) SCC 618 , it was held that where the accused by his acts or by a continued course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no option but to commit suicide, an 'instigation' may be inferred. In order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person it has to be established that- (i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct, which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words of willful 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, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
33. The intention of the legislature and ratio of the cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Sec. 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 committed suicide - S.S. Chhena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 18of 27 Another 2010 (12) SCC 190: 2010 AIR SCW 4938.
34. There should be some live link or a proximate link between the act of the accused and the act of committing of suicide. If, the live link is missing, it cannot be said that the accused has instigated, or intentionally aided the commission of suicide and for holding this view, this court is taking shelter of the case reported as M. Mohan Vs. State 2011 (3) SCC 626.
35. In Sanjay Jain Vs. State of MP 2013 CrLJ 668 (Chh) observed as
- Mere stray instances of quarrel between husband and wife or the evidence that at the times appellant used to consume liquor cannot be termed as abetment as defined under Sc. 107 IPCs and in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused/appellant instigated or abetted the deceased to end her life and that being the position his conviction under Sec. 306 IPC is not justified.
36. Before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Sec. 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously before 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. 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 basis of allegations or harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of offence 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- Ref.
SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 19of 27 Amalendu Pal Vs. State of WB (2010) 1 SCC 707 (para 12).
37. Taunting the bride for brining less dowry and having given birth to a female child does not amount to abetment by instigation persuading the bride to commit suicide and further when the evidence on record shows that the husband was away on duty and thus could not be present at the death bed of his wife, section 306 IPC goes out of the way - State of Punjab Vs Kirpal Singh (1992) 2 Crimes 926 (P&H).
38. A woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment . The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning and all these observations are reported in case reported as - Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2014 CrLJ 2425.
39. In case reported as Gurcharan Singh V. The State of Punjab (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para no. 11 as follows:-
"...insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. What might have been the level of expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and the degree of her frustration, if any, if not found through any evidence on record. More significantly, willful negligence by the husband could not be shown by the prosecution..."
SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 20of 27 Further, in para 15 of the same, it was also observed - xx the ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.
Then, in para 16 of the same judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed as -"The necessary ingredients for the offence under section 306 IPC was considered in the case S.S. Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan 1 (2010) 12 SCC 190 where explaining the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:-
"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing 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 case 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 that the act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
Even at one point of this judgment, reference of Amalendu Pal Vs. State of WB (supra) has also been mentioned reiterating the observations.
40. In a case reported as Jambu Vs. State rep. By Inspector of Police 2022 SCC Online Mad. 718 Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the court also set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 306 IPC mentioning some of the cases mentioned above and also Vijay Kumar Rastogi Vs. State of Rajasthan 2012 Crl LJ 2342.
SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 21of 27
41. Qua issue of illicit relationship between accused and his sister-in-law, as discussed hereinabove, though nothing has been brought on record in the form of any photographs or CDRs etc., it may be considered otherwise also that a younger brother-in-law may have respect for his sister-in-law. Even if it is not be considered that taken otherwise also, in case reported as 2015 IV AD (SC) 105 Ghuabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya & Ors Vs. State of Gujarat , where there was allegations of extra-marital affair, it was observed as under:-
"...There is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal Vs. State of Gujrat (2013) 10 SCC 48, but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide..."
42. In Para No. 18 of the judgment of Pinakin Mahipatray (supra) it is held that "mental relationship means the legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include marital obligation to another like companionship living under the same roof, sexual relations and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have children, their upbringing services in the home, support affections, love, liking and so on. Extramarital relationship as is not defined in the Penal Code. Though, according to the SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 22of 27 prosecution in this case it was the relationship which ultimately led to mental harassment and cruelty within the Explanation to Section 498A and that A1 had abetted the wife to commit suicide. xxx xxxxx We are of the view that the mere fact that husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such would not amount to "cruelty" but it must be of such a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within the Explanation to Sec. 498A, Harassment, of course, need not to be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also would come within the purview of Sec. 498A IPC. Mental cruelty, of course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may think of ending one's life. We, one facts, found that alleged extramarital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to commit suicide ...."
43. Apart from above all, there is undisputed fact that accused was not present immediately before the death of Versha. Rather it is also case of the prosecution that accused did not contact him for the last so many days. Hence, under these circumstances, it cannot be stated that it was the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
44. In view of the above discussion, duly coupled with the observations made in catena of judgment of various Courts including Hon'ble SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 23of 27 Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, for which, accused has been charged. Accordingly, accused Akhilesh is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
45. Now, come to the issue of Section 498A IPC, for which accused has also been charged with. To facilitate the matter, Section 498A IPC is reproduced as under:-
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with XXX.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
46. It is the prosecution case itself that this was second marriage of both parties i.e. accused and deceased. Nothing has been brought on record that said marriage was performed with pump and show or that various dowry articles were given in the said marriage. On the contrary, it is their admitted case that said marriage was solemnized at Arya Samaj SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 24of 27 Mandir, Yamuna Bazar.
47. As mentioned above, it has been brought on record that it was second marriage of both the parties i.e. of accused and deceased and was solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir. Accused in specific terms stated that this marriage was solemnized without any dowry. No photographs are collected by the prosecution. The accused himself placed on record some photographs which clearly show that it was very simple marriage without guests. Nothing has been brought on record to contrary to it or there is no whisper to the effect that dowry articles were given in the marriage of accused and deceased. No specific date of any demand of dowry was mentioned. There is only allegation to the effect that deceased was pressurized to bear all her household expenses and to put a fix amount in the account of daughter born out of wedlock of accused and deceased. It is undisputed fact that parents of Versha had no son and they were facing financial hardship and Versha used to contribute the expenses for her parents. Father of Versha was having kidney problem and from the evidences it appears that he was alcohol addict. Without commenting to the present case, mere quarrel between couple cannot be termed as dowry demands or maltreatment to the wife. If any such issue was there, deceased was working lady and that too in the establishment of District Courts at Delhi and she must be well aware about her rights and may make complaint(s), if such situation arises at any point of time. There was no bar/ban for her to avail her legal rights. She has not lodged even single complaint whatsoever during her lifetime either against the accused or SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 25of 27 any member of her parental family which also casts doubts.
48. Statement of accounts produced during the defence evidence by accused is a clear indication that no amount was withdrawn by accused from the joint accounts with Versha. Even if, the allegations of prosecution taken as gospel truth qua Versha was asked to bear household expenses, it can be easily said that it was expected from every earning partner to contribute and it was their personal choice how to use/spend their income. The deceased was working in the Government service and she must be also claiming HRA and therefore her paying some rental amount cannot be ruled out. It is also clear from the record produced by accused during his defence evidence that deceased while staying at her parental home before her death, has applied for government accommodation and in the application for said request, she has mentioned the address of parents of the accused. Unfortunately, said request was acceded to after her death for allotment of government accommodation. But mentioning of address of parents of the accused even during her stay at parental home is an indication that deceased wanted to company of the accused and all this, goes against the prosecution.
49. Qua income issue and amount debited/credited, this court has discussed the issue in detail, in the above paras of the judgment. Qua issue of illicit relationship, matter has already been discussed and found no merits in the case qua offence punishable under Sec. 498-A IPC also. The dire financial needs of the parents of Versha has also been discussed in detail and they have stooped so low that they have SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 26of 27 illegally entered the house of the accused person in his absence and even withdrawn an amount of Rs.11,000/- from his credit card. The accused was so magnanimous that he has given the consent for quashing of the FIR which was lodged against the father and other relatives of the deceased. The parties have also approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR and the parents have categorically mentioned in the affidavits filed before the Hon'ble High Court that the accused has not committed any offence.
50. With these observations also, this court is of the considered view that prosecution has also failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 498- A IPC also. As such, accused is also entitled for acquittal under Sec. 498-A IPC and is acquitted hereby for the said offence also.
51. To sum up of the above discussion is that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused either of the offence punishable under Sec. 306 IPC or 498-A IPC and consequent upon, accused Akhilesh S/o Sh. Avinash Chander Singhal is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 306 IPC and 498-A IPC for which he has been charged with.
52. Case property, if any, be confiscated to State, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on this 05 th day of April, 2022.
(ARUN SUKHIJA) Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East):
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi SC No. 224/2016 State Vs. Akhilesh Page - 27of 27