Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Ichhya Devi on 24 July, 2024
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
( 2024:HHC:5737 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr. Appeal No. 10 of 2014 Reserved on: 22.07.2024 Decided on: 24th July, 2024 .
State of Himachal Pradesh .......Appellant
Versus
Ichhya Devi ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate r General, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondent: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC'), the State has filed the instant appeal.
2. As per case set-up by the prosecution, an information was received from Civil Hospital, Jawali on 07.07.2007 at about 12.35 p.m that one lady has been brought to the hospital, who had consumed poison and accordingly, rapat Ext.PW-10/A was lodged and ASI Desh Raj along-with 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS2 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) other police officials visited the hospital and moved an application for obtaining the MLC of Sonia and for recording her statement, but the doctor had declared her unfit to give .
statement. Thereafter, the I.O. recorded the statement of the father of Sonia, Sh. Ramesh Kumar under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') vide Ext.PW-1/A. Sonia was referred to Civil Hospital, Nurpur and the Investigating Officer visited the house of Sonia and searched the room of the respondent and recovered one plastic vial over which 'Truphos poison' was written containing four tablets. While Sonia was being taken to Pathankot for treatment, she died on the way. Thereafter, ASI Desh Raj filled the inquest papers Ext.PW-3/B and Ext.PW-
3/C and got clicked the photographs Ext.PW-12/B and Ext.PW-12/C. Application was moved to the Medical Officer for post-mortem of the deceased and the doctor accordingly conducted the post-mortem and handed over the post-mortem report Ext.PW-3/D and after perusing the report of FSL Ext.P-
A, Dr. Raman Sharma gave his final opinion that the cause of death of deceased Sonia was phosphide poisoning, leading to cardio respiratory failure vide opinion Ext.PW3/E.
3. During investigation, viscera of deceased was also taken into possession, which was sent to FSL, Junga along-
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS3 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) with three more parcels and the contents of all the parcels had been analyzed and phosphine gas was detected in the contents of parcels/exhibits P/1, P/1-2, P/1-3, P/1-4, P-2 and P-3.
.
However, the same could not be detected in Ext.P/1-5. No poison could be detected in the other parcels/exhibits. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the challan under Sections 498A and 306 IPC against the respondent.
4. On finding a prima-facie case, charge against the respondent was framed under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, to which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.
6. On closure of prosecution evidence, the respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which, she denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded her innocence. She was also called upon to enter her defence, but she did not lead any evidence.
7. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the respondent, constraining the State to file the instant appeal.
8. It is vehemently argued by Ms. Sharmila Patial, learned Additional Advocate General that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse and, therefore, deserve ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 4 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) to be set aside and the respondent deserves to be convicted for the offences, she has been charged with.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned .
counsel appearing for the respondent would urge that there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and being based on evidence, the same do not warrant any interference by this Court as there is double presumption of innocence upon acquittal of the respondent, which need not to be interfered with.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record.
11. First of all, we would reiterate the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for assailing the acquittal of the accused, on the findings recorded by the learned trial Court.
12. In Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another (2022) 2 SCC 471, a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court encapsulated the legal position governing the field, after considering various earlier judgments, and held as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS5 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) "28. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words:
"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:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(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."
13. Further, in case titled as H.D. Sundara and others vs. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581, the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 6 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of Appellate jurisdiction, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. The relevant .
paragraphs No. 8 to 10 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: -
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
9. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS
7 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot .
overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.
10. There is one more aspect of the matter. In many cases, the learned Trial Judge who eventually passes the order of acquittal has an occasion to record the oral testimony of all material witnesses. Thus, in such cases, the Trial Court has the additional advantage of closely observing the prosecution witnesses and their demeanour. While deciding about the reliability of the version of prosecution witnesses, their demeanour remains in the back of the mind of the learned Trial Judge. As observed in the commentary by Sarkar on the Law of Evidence, the demeanour of a witness frequently furnishes a clue to the weight of his testimony. This aspect has to be borne in mind while dealing with an appeal against acquittal."
14. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
b) That the same is based on misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS
8 ( 2024:HHC:5737 )
c) That no two views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
d) The Appellate Court in order to interference with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent .
findings on the above factors, if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
15. Equally settled is the proposition that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court when it agrees with the view of the trial Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court, expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court, the decision of which is under repeal, would ordinarily suffice (Refer: Girijanandini Devi vs. Rabindernandini Choudhary AIR 1967 SC 124).
16. Before we advert to the merits of the case, it will be necessary to refer to the statutory provisions of offences, for which, the respondent has been charge sheeted.
17. Section 498A IPC reads 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 imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. For the purpose of this section, "cruelty"
means-
(a) any wilful 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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 9 ( 2024:HHC:5737 )
(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.]"
.
18. Section 306 IPC reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide,- if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
19. While analyzing the provisions of Section 306 IPC along-with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mariano Anto Bruno and another vs. Inspector of Police AIR 2022 SC 4994, has observed in paras 23 to 26 as under:-
"23. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:-
"107. Abetment of a thing:- A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First- 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.
Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS
10 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
.
24. While analyzing the provisions of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another 5 has observed as under:-
"13. In our country, while suicide in itself is not an offence as a person committing suicide goes beyond the reach of law but an attempt to suicide is considered to be an offence under Section 309 IPC. The abetment of suicide by anybody is also an offence under Section 306 IPC. It would be relevant to set out Section 306 of the IPC which reads as under:-
"306. Abetment of suicide. --If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
14. Though, the IPC does not define the word 'Suicide' but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is 'self-
killing'. The word is derived from a modern latin word 'suicidium' , 'sui' means 'oneself' and 'cidium' means 'killing'. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of 'self- killing'. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.
15. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same.
16. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word 'instigate' is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in the case of Ramesh 5 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873 Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh1 has defined the word 'instigate' as under:-
"Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act."
17. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co- relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case of S.S.Cheena Vs. ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 11 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr6, it was observed as under:-
"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 the Supreme 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."
25. The ingredients of Section 306 IPC have been extensively laid out in M. Arjunan Vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police 7 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 language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There 6 (2010) 12 SCC 190 7 (2019) 3 SCC 315 should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, 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 the culpability. With regard to the same, a two-judge bench of this Court in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 8 observed as under:-
"16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 12 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) behavior 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 commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained 8 (2019) 17 SCC 30 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 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 snap show 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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 13 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased."
20. 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/she could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.
21. In all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the respondent herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.
Proceeding with the above understanding of law and applying the ratio to the facts of the present case, what is apparent is that no overt act or illegal omission is seen from the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 14 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) respondent's side, as would be evident from the following discussion.
22. Adverting to the instant case, it is at the instance of .
PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, father of the deceased that criminal law actually has been set into motion. While appearing as PW-1, he deposed that after one year of marriage, his daughter Sonia used to tell him that her mother-in-law had been torturing her on account of bringing less dowry. His son-in-law was alright and he was having no complaint against him. On 21.06.2007, there was a marriage in the neighborhood and Sonia attended the said marriage, where she disclosed to him that she was upset and could do anything. On 07.07.2007, at 3.00 p.m. he received a telephonic call from his son-in-law that his daughter has consumed poison and thereafter from the police asking him to reach at Bharmar. He reached Bharmar, where his statement was recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He did not lodge any complaint in the Panchayat or before the Police as his daughter had refused to do so under the fear of being insulted and also under the threat and fear of the respondent. According to him, his daughter had consumed poison because she had been tortured by the respondent.
23. On being cross-examined, PW-1 categorically admitted that he had solemnized second marriage. He also ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 15 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) admitted that after marriage, Sonia used to come to their house to attend every function, volunteered to state that after one year of marriage, for three years, Sonia did not visit them .
and during this period, he remained posted in Assam. He further admitted that whenever he came on leave, he would come to the house of Sonia. He further admitted that after his retirement on 31st January, 2004, Sonia visited his house to attend functions. He also admitted that respondent had not demanded anything from him. It shall be apt to reproduce the relevant part of the statement, which is reproduced as under:-
"It is correct that I have solemnized second marriage. It is correct that after marriage Sonia used to come to our house to attend every function. Self stated that after one year of marriage for three years Sonia did not visit us.
During this period I was posted in Assam. Whenever I used to come on leave, I used to go to the house of Sonia. I retired from the Army on 31st January, 2004. I visited to the house of Sonia, for the last time, about 5/6 months prior to her death. It is correct that after my retirement and before her death Sonia visited our house to attend functions. It is correct that accused had not demanded anything from me."
24. It would be evidently clear from the aforesaid statement that though he would maintain that his daughter was being harassed for bringing less dowry, but then, he did not lodge any complaint either with the Panchayat or with the police or any other authority. That apart, he specifically admitted that respondent had not demanded anything from him.
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS16 ( 2024:HHC:5737 )
25. Now, as regards the other witnesses i.e. PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, Ward Panch of Kallar Panchayat, PW-4 Suman Kumari and PW-7 Sukanya Devi, aunts of deceased, they all .
had stated that deceased Sonia used to tell them that her mother-in-law used to torture her for bringing less dowry. But, then again, none of them had ever brought this fact to the notice of police or any other authority, including the Panchayat by filing a complaint. It has specifically come on record that cause of death of deceased Sonia was phosphide poisoning leading to cardio respiratory failure. It has specifically been admitted by PW-3 Dr. Raman Sharma, who conducted the post-mortem that there was no mark of external injury on the body of deceased.
26. Noticeably, The prosecution witnesses, more particularly, PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, Ward Panch of Kallar Panchayat, PW-4 Suman Kumari and PW-7 Sukanya Devi, aunts of deceased, had tried to impress upon the Court to accept their versions that deceased used to tell them that she was being maltreated and harassed by the respondent for bringing less dowry. Meaning thereby these facts were well within their knowledge, yet they chose to remain silent or mute spectators for not bringing it to the ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 17 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) notice of any of the authorities, be it police or the Panchayat etc.
27. Not only this, all of them have failed to furnish any .
plausible explanation as to why despite having knowledge regarding the maltreatment and harassment being caused to deceased Sonia, they did not report the matter, as aforesaid.
28. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, the allegations cannot be accepted on their face value, rather they have to be taken with a pinch of salt. But again, there is no other evidence worth the name, led by the prosecution, which may even remotely suggest that it was on account of maltreatment that was meted out to the deceased, she was compelled to commit suicide.
29. It is more than settled that there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly, in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior 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 ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 18 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) deceased by another person would not suffice unless there is 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.
30. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the specific case of the prosecution is that the deceased had attended the marriage in the neighbourhood of her father on 21.06.2007, on which date, she had disclosed the fact regarding the maltreatment and harassment being meted out to her to her father, at the instance of the respondent.
Whereas, Sonia attempted to commit suicide on 07.07.2007 i.e. after 15 days and in this way, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the so called offending action of the respondent was in close proximity to the time of occurrence.
There is no cogent and convincing evidence led by the prosecution to prove its case.
31. There is no direct or indirect incitement to the commission of suicide. There is no proof of harassment whatsoever in the instant case. Even there is not an iota of harassment meted out to the deceased in the instant case, let alone, the evidence of continuous harassment. There is no evidence to establish any positive action by the respondent ::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS 19 ( 2024:HHC:5737 ) which showed promixate time of occurrence which action compelled the deceased to commit suicide.
32. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the .
findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, given the fact that the State is not in a position to show any evidence worth the name to take contrary view in the matter than the one taken by the learned trial Court.
33. The State has miserably failed to establish that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest or illegal error and the decision of the learned trial Court is against the material and evidence available on record.
34. In this view of the matter, we are in agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent and in our considered opinion, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper, therefore, warrants no interference by this Court.
35. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
36. Record be sent down.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
Judge
July 24, 2024 ( Sushil Kukreja )
(naveen) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 24/07/2024 20:31:56 :::CIS