Court: High Court Of Allahabad
Bench: JUSTICE Harsh Kumar
State of U.P. vs. Sukhoo and Ors. On 12 January 2017
Law Point:
Abetment of suicide – In the absence of any specific avertments or evidence with regard to demand of dowry or treating deceased with cruelty, provision of S.113 of Evidence Act is not attracted. Accused rightly acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.1987 by which the Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges under section 306 I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No. 1 Sukhho and respondent No. 4 Smt. Mithia have died and appeal as against them has abated vide orders dated 1.10.2012 and 5.1.2017 respectively.
2. Heard Shri Shailendra Rathore for the State of U.P. and Shri Sharique Ahmad for surviving accused respondents No. 2 and 3 Laiak Ahmad and Ashiq Ali.
3. The brief facts relating to the case are that the first informant Sultan son of Maula Baksh lodged an F.I.R. on 21.3.1985 at 1.10 pm with the allegation that his daughter Zaibun Nisa was married to accused Laiak Ahmad 2 years 1 month before the incident and has committed suicide by hanging on 21.3.1985 at 5.30 am. In the F.I.R. lodged against Laiak Ahmad the husband, Sukhho the father-in-law, and Smt. Mithia, the mother-in-law of deceased, it was further stated that the first informant has come to know that yesterday evening, some hot talks followed with quarrel took place between the deceased and her mother-in-law Smt. Mithia, on account of which she died and that since her in-laws used to torture her on minor issues, he feels that feeling annoyed she has committed suicide.
4. In Case Crime No. 49 of 1985 registered on the lodging of F.I.R. upon completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge-sheet and matter was committed to Sessions where after framing the charges against the accused respondents under section 306 IPC trial proceeded. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced as many as 9 witnesses viz., PW 1 Sultan first informant, PW 2 Bhairav, PW 3 Chandra Bhan, PW 4 Darshan, PW 6 Sukhho son of Parma, PW 7 Indra Pal Head Constable, PW 8 Maula Baksh grand-father of the deceased, PW 9 Allauddin, the person of the village of Sasural of deceased and PW 5 Dr. S. Alam the Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem of the body of the deceased.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused persons did not produce any defence evidence and after hearing the arguments of the parties’ learned Counsel, the learned lower Court passed the impugned order acquitting the accused persons of the charges under section 306 IPC.
6. The learned A.G.A. argued that the impugned order of acquittal is wrong on facts and law; that the learned Trial Court acted wrongly in not appreciating the evidence on record correctly; that it was fully proved from the evidence on record that since after marriage the deceased was being tortured on petty issues, by her in-laws who compelled her to commit suicide; that it is fully proved from the evidence on record that one day before the incident of committing suicide, the quarrel had taken place between the deceased and her mother-in-law Smt. Mithia, in which the mother-in-law of the deceased had asked her, not to show her face the next morning, resulting in committal of suicide by the deceased, which is sufficient to prove the charges; that the death of Smt. Zaibun Nisa has occurred within three years of marriage and there is presumption of abetment against husband and in-laws; that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the accused respondents are liable to be convicted and sentenced.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for surviving respondents Laiak Ahmad, the husband of deceased, and Ashiq Ali, the Jeth of deceased, contended that in the F.I.R. or entire prosecution evidence there is no whisper of any demand of dowry by the accused or of treating the deceased with cruelty for non-fulfilment of alleged demand of dowry and so the provisions of section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act may not be attracted and there can be no presumption that the abetment had been caused by the accused respondents instigating the deceased to commit suicide; that Ashiq Ali, the Jeth of deceased is not named in F.I.R. and no allegation has been made against the Jeth or husband at any stage; that there is no iota of evidence of alleged abetment against the husband or Jeth of the deceased; that the entire prosecution evidence, at the most states that there was an oral quarrel between the deceased and her mother-in-law, as has also been mentioned in the F.I.R; that the prosecution witness PW 2 Bhairav, PW 3 Chandra Bhan and PW 4 Darshan belonging to the place of occurrence have stated on oath that the deceased was having a complaint of pain in her abdomen since long, of which she was not taking the medicine regularly, because of which her mother-in-law used to ask her to take medicine regularly and there used to be a dispute between them on this issue; that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and even the first informant has not made any whisper with regard to any torture of deceased by the surviving respondents; that there is a mere allegation made by him at internal page of 3 of his statement on oath which does not prove prosecution case against surviving respondents; that Nana of deceased PW 8 has also stated “that in the preceding night there was a dispute between deceased and her mother-in-law, wherein the mother-in-law had asked the deceased not to show her face the next morning, resulting in her suicide; that PW 4, PW 6 and PW 7 are formal witnesses with regard to the recovery of clothes, inquest report and chik F.I.R; that PW 9 has also not supported the prosecution case; that even if the prosecution evidence is accepted as such, at the most the role of abetment is assigned to the deceased mother-in-law and father-in-law of deceased, who have died pending appeal and against whom the appeal has abated; that in the entire prosecution evidence there is no allegation against the surviving respondents, husband and Jeth; that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence and there is no legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the impugned order which may require interference by this Court for setting aside of the order of acquittal and converting it in conviction.
8. Upon hearing parties Counsel and perusal of record, I find that in prosecution case or evidence there is no whisper of any demand of dowry by the in-laws or husband of the deceased or of treating her with cruelty in connection with non-fulfilment of alleged demand of dowry. It appears from the evidence on record that the deceased was having long ailment of abdominal pain of which she was not taking medicines regularly and so there was some dispute between the deceased and her mother-in-law over not taking of medicines regularly. The evidence on record shows that the mother-in-law of deceased insisted her to take medicines regularly and due to her disobedience and stubborn attitude being annoyed had admonished her in this matter. In absence of any specific averments or evidence with regard to demand of dowry or of treating the deceased with cruelty in connection with non-fulfilment of alleged demand of dowry, the provisions of section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act are not attracted. Otherwise also there is no evidence at all against the surviving respondents to show that they ever tortured or even abused the deceased or abetted or instigated her for committing suicide in any manner whatsoever.
9. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surerderan MANU/SC/8009/2007 : 2008 (63) ACC 810 (SC), that “When two views are possible, Appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of Trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified”.
10. In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned A.G.A. has failed to show that the learned Trial Court failed to consider any evidence on record or has misread the evidence on record. The learned AGA has also failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the findings given in the impugned order of acquittal by the Trial Court and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order of acquittal or for substituting it with the order of conviction. The appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Let the Lower Court records be transmitted to Court below immediately along with a copy of the judgment.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment