Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Harijan Babu Amra & on 22 March, 2013
Author: Abhilasha Kumari
Bench: Abhilasha Kumari
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)V/SHARIJAN BABU AMRA R/CR.A/1228/1997 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1228 of 1997 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI =========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ================================================================ STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s) Versus HARIJAN BABU AMRA & 1....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KL PANDYA, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Appellant MS ARCHANA U AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 22/03/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.11.1997, rendered in Sessions Case No.142 of 1992, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Junagadh, whereby the respondents original accused have been acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that Savitaben, the deceased, was married to respondent No.1 and lived in her matrimonial home at Village Choki. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, the brother-in-law of the deceased (husband s younger brother) used to scold the deceased for not covering her face as per the custom, and for household work. As per the case of the prosecution, the respondents used to beat the deceased and treat her with cruelty, due to which she was driven to commit suicide by sprinkling kerosene upon her person and setting herself ablaze.
The complaint in this regard was filed by Bhanabhai Badhabhai, father of the deceased, before the Junagadh Taluka Police Station, on 14.04.1991. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR was registered against the respondents and the investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, an inquest was held on the body of the deceased,which was sent for autopsy. The Panchnama of the scene of offence was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. At the end of the investigation, as there was sufficient incriminating evidence against the respondents, a chargesheet came to be filed against them before the learned Magistrate. As the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, after which it was transferred to the Court that has rendered the impugned judgment (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court). The Trial Court framed the Charge(Ex.1) against the respondents on 01.09.1997. The Charge was read over and explained to the respondents who denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Accordingly,the case was put to trial.
The prosecution has examined seven witnesses in support of its case and has produced an equal number of documents, as evidence. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the Trial Court explained to the accused, the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondents denied the charges against them. At the end of the Trial, upon appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that undisputably, the deceased had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. It further found that the prosecution had failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the respondents had instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in any manner, whatsoever, prompting her to end her life. Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons of the offences with which they were charged, giving rise to the filing of the present appeal.
Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that from the evidence of the witnesses, it has come on record that the deceased was being harassed and treated with cruelty by her husband respondent No.1 and by her brother-in-law respondent No.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the period of marriage of the deceased with respondent No.1 was only one year, therefore, there is a presumption against respondents under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that the complainant, father of the deceased, has mentioned in the complaint that respondent No.2 had gone to the maternal home of the deceased at Torania village on the preceding Friday, and told his wife and him that the deceased does not cover her face in front of their neighbours Muljibhai and Nathabhai, for which reason he had scolded her. This shows that there was harassment to the deceased from respondent No.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor points out that it is stated by the complainant in the complaint that one month ago, when the deceased had come to her parents house, she had complained to her mother about the harassment caused to her by her husband and brother-in-law, regarding household work. He has relied upon the statement of PW-3, Kamiben Bhanabhai, mother of the deceased in this regard and has submitted that there is sufficient material on record to show that the deceased was being harassed, due to which she was driven to commit suicide, and the evidence in this regard has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal may be allowed.
Ms.Archana Amin, learned advocate for the respondents, submits that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, in support of the alleged harassment caused by the respondents to the deceased. Even otherwise, from the material on record, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that the respondents were harassing the deceased and treating her with cruelty or that there was instigation and abetment from them to commit suicide. That, there are contradictions between the deposition of the complainant and the complaint as well as the depositions of the father, mother and brother of the deceased, which shows that the evidence on record is not trustworthy. It is further submitted that the witnesses are interested persons and the Trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents. Lastly, it is submitted that where two views are possible, this Court ought to adopt the one in favour of the accused. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:
(a) Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (2007)4 SCC 415
(b) Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras (2009)10 SCC 401 To prove its case, the prosecution has examined Bhanabhai Badhabhai, the complainant, as PW-2, at Ex.17. He deposes that two months before the death of his daughter, respondent No.2, brother-in-law of the deceased, had come on a Friday to his house at Torania and asked him and his wife to go to village Choki (matrimonial house of the deceased). They, therefore, went to Choki the next day. He states that his daughter had been beaten up therefore, they had been asked to come to Choki and the deceased had also informed him that her husband and brother-in-law are beating and harassing her regarding household work. He states that after explaining to the deceased that such incidents happen, they came back to Torania. Thereafter, the deceased came to Village Torania for a visit during which period she informed him that she could no longer bear the beatings and harassment meted out to her and she does not want to live in her matrimonial home. However, the complainant sent the deceased back to Choki. He states that his daughter Savitaben had ended her life by setting herself ablaze due to the beatings, harassment and cruel treatment meted out by the respondents.
In his cross-examination, this witness states that when respondent No.2 had come to their house neither he, nor his wife PW-3, were present at home. He also denies that the deceased was of an extremely sensitive disposition. There are several discrepancies in the testimony of this witness and the complaint lodged by him. In the complaint, he states that on the last Friday, meaning the Friday before 14.04.1991 when complaint was lodged, respondent No.2 had come to his house at Torania and had told him and the mother of the deceased to go to village Choki, as the deceased had been scolded regarding not covering her face in front of Muljibhai and Nathabhai and for household work. He further states that respondent No.2 had come to his house two months before Savitaben expired, whereas Savitaben expired on 14.04.1991 at 10:00 hrs. In his deposition, PW-2 states that he was not present at the house when respondent No.2 came there, whereas in the complaint, he states that respondent No.2 had told him to come to Choki. This witness does not give any details regarding any specific incidents of harassment that may have been caused to the deceased by the respondents, except general allegations regarding harassment and beatings.
PW-3, Kamiben Bhanabhai, the mother of the deceased, has been examined at Ex.19. She states that before Savitaben s death, on a Friday, respondent No.2 had come to Torania but she and her husband were not at home at that time. That respondent No.2 told her younger son, Rameshbhai, to inform her husband and her to come to Choki. At that place, the deceased told her that her husband, brother-in-law and her mother-in-law are harassing her.
In her cross-examination, this witness states that initially, there were good relations between the family of the complainant and her daughter s in-laws (the father-in-law of the deceased is the brother of this witness). However, later on, the accused started harassing her daughter for not covering her face before neighbours. This witness mentions regarding harassment from the mother-in-law of the deceased in her testimony, whereas the complainant does not mentioned anything regarding harassment caused by the mother-in-law, either in his complaint or in his deposition.
PW-4 is Madhabhai Bhanabhai, who is the brother of the deceased. He has been examined at Ex.20. This witness states that he had gone to the house of the deceased four days before her death. When he met her, the deceased told him that the respondents were treating her with cruelty. He states he informed his parents PW-2 and PW-3 regarding this. However, neither PW-2 nor PW-3 have stated in their depositions that they were informed by PW-4, that four days prior to her death, he had met the deceased, who had told him about the cruel treatment meted to her by the respondents.
In his cross-examination, this witness states that he lives separately from his parents. He denies that the married life of Savitaben was running smoothly in the initial stage, which is contrary to what his mother, PW-3, has stated. He has stated in his cross-examination that the respondents used to harass his sister for not covering her face. He further states that he used to visit Savitaben s house frequently, and it has so happened that the respondents have beaten Savitaben in his presence. However, this witness has not divulged a single detail of any incident of beatings given to the deceased in his presence.
PW-5, Ravjibhai Manjibhai, is one of the Panch Witness, who has been examined at Ex.22. He states that on 14.04.1991, he was called as a Panch witness by the police, along with another Panch witness by the name of Girdharbhai Hanrsajbhai in connection with the Panchnama regarding death by burning. He states that the Police took them to the house where the incident had taken place, where a lady was lying in a burnt condition. He deposes that he has no idea whether there was a smell of kerosene around the body or any articles were lying there. He states that he did not see any articles at that place. This witness further states that the Police prepared the Panchnama, which he signed.
In his cross-examination, this witness denies everything, including the description of the house given by him in the examination-in-chief. This witness has, understandably, been declared hostile.
The other Panch Witness, Girdharbhai Hansrajbhai, has been examined at Ex.24. He states that he was called by the Police as a Panch witness regarding the death of the wife of respondent No.1, by burning, and had gone to the house of the accused where he saw the body of a lady in a burnt condition. He describes the direction of the door of the house. He states that the Police prepared the Panchnama and he was present till it was completed. He further states that he did not enter the room where the incident took place but was standing near the door. He deposes that he does not know what was there in the room.
In his cross-examination, he denies the entire case of the prosecution, including the fact that the body of the deceased was lying in the room or that there was a smell of kerosene. He denies having seen a Can of kerosene at that place. He denies that the Police prepared the Panchnama as per his say but admits his signature thereupon. The deposition of this witness is also of no aid to the case of the prosecution and he has been declared hostile.
Mansing Halusing, the Investigating Officer, has been examined at Ex.25, and his deposition is formal in nature.
On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents harassed the deceased or treated her with cruelty to the extent of driving her to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
Having re-appreciated the evidence, this Court finds itself in agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court. The allegations regarding cruelty and beating are general in nature. No specific incident has been highlighted by any of the witnesses. It ought to be noted that the mother of the deceased and the father of the respondents are sister and brother. Initially, there were good relations between the families. However, it emerges from the evidence on record that the respondents did not like the fact that the deceased was not covering her face in front of their neighbours and elders as per the local custom. This appears to be the root of the problem. The record reveals that the respondents have scolded the deceased in this regard. However, no strong or cogent evidence regarding beating, constant harassment or cruelty emerges from the material on record, so as to bring home the charges against the respondents beyond the shadow of a doubt.
There are inherent contradictions in the testimonies of respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4. PW-3 does not state regarding the fact that the deceased had come to their house after they had visited Choki and told them that she could not bear the cruelty any longer and did not want to reside at the matrimonial house, as has been stated by PW-2. PW-2 and 3 have not stated that PW-4 had informed them regarding his meeting with the deceased four days prior to her death, when she told him that she was being beaten and treated with cruelty by the respondents. The factum of cruel treatment by the respondents to the deceased has not been established by the prosecution.
It is noteworthy that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The witnesses, who have been examined, are the parents and brother of the deceased, who can be said to be interested witnesses.
In order to bring home the Charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there must be some evidence on record to show that prior to the incident, there was harassment and torture to the deceased at the hands of the respondents which was of such a nature that she was compelled to commit suicide. The witnesses do not disclose that any quarrel or incident took place on the date Savitaben died so as to drive her to end her life, or that there is instigation or abetment from the respondents to commit suicide.
In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001)9 SCC 618, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed 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 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.
In the instant case, the evidence on record does not reveal that the respondents had, by their acts or omission or by their continued course of conduct, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is no direct evidence as to what type of physical or mental torture was meted out to the deceased by the respondents, except for general allegations, uncorroborated by any independent evidence. The available evidence is contradictory and not worthy or credence.
In view of the aforesaid state of affairs, this Court finds that the Trial Court has arrived at a correct conclusion in recording a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents, beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court is, therefore, right in acquitting the respondents.
In Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka (supra), the Supreme Court has held as below:
42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
.. ... ...
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.....
In Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, the Supreme Court has reiterated the above principles of law and held that if two reasonable or possible views can be reached one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused .
Applying the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above two judgments to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the view taken by the Trial Court is possible and probable on the basis of the evidence led before it. This Court is in agreement with the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal of the respondents and the ultimate conclusion itself.
For the above reasons, there is no valid reason for interference with the impugned judgment and order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(SMT.
ABHILASHA KUMARI, J.) sunil Page 20 of 20