Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Dharam Chand Chaudhary and Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Varinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. On 23 March 2017
Law Point:
Abetment of suicide – Prosecution has is required to plead and prove that one person instigated another person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, another person committed suicide.
JUDGEMENT
1. Complainant Sh. Virender Singh, victim of the occurrence, aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2010 whereby respondents No. 2 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the accused) have been acquitted from the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC framed against each of them has preferred this appeal on the grounds inter alia that material piece of evidence viz. the conversation of deceased Seema Devi with her mother and her sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Renu PW-5 over cell phone has not been taken into consideration without assigning any plausible reason and rather erroneously ignored. The remaining evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of complainant Virender Singh (PW-1) and Amit Kumar (PW-4) which also proves the torturing and mal-treatment of the deceased at the hands of accused persons and the abetment of commission of suicide by her is also stated to be erroneously ignored. The deceased had committed suicide in the matrimonial home within 7 years of her marriage with accused Manoj Kumar and as the accused persons have failed to offer plausible explanation qua commission of suicide by her, in case it was not due to her maltreatment at their hands, the Court below has gravely erred in not drawing the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act against them. The link evidence was also sufficient to bring guilt home to the accused persons, however, the same has also not been relied upon. The impugned judgment, as such, has been sought to be quashed and set aside.
2. Deceased Seema Devi was daughter of Virender Singh (PW-1) and sister of Amit Kumar (PW-4) whereas sister-in-law (Nanad) of PW-5 Renu. She was married to accused Manoj Kumar on 2.12.2005 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The said accused was adopted son of his co-accused Raj Rani and Des Raj. PW-2 Sukhdev Singh is the natural father of accused Manoj Kumar. The said accused was employed in CRPF. Out of this wed-lock, one son was born to deceased Seema Devi from the loins of her husband accused Manoj Kumar.
3. PW-1 Virender Singh, the father of the deceased vide his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW-1/A had reported that his daughter was treated nicely by the accused persons in the matrimonial home for about 3 years. Thereafter, they started quarreling with her on trivial issues. The deceased was being treated with physical and mental cruelty by them. He was apprised qua all this by his wife Kashmiro Devi. He allegedly visited the house of accused on 2-3 occasions and asked them to behave with his daughter properly but of no avail as while treating her nicely for few days, the accused persons started quarreling with her again. The comments and taunts such as deceased was not knowing to perform the agricultural work were being passed on by them upon her.
4. On 10.5.2010 around 8:45 PM, he was informed by his wife over telephone that Seema had disclosed to her over phone that the accused were fighting with her and as they maltreated her, therefore, she had consumed some medicine. She had also requested his wife to come to the place of her father-in-law at Panjawar and take away her minor son therefrom. On hearing all this, Virender Singh (PW-1) allegedly hired a vehicle and accompanied by his wife and both sons reached the hospital at Una. The police had already reached in the hospital. He found his daughter deceased Seema lying unconscious. The Medical Officer on duty referred her to some other health institution having better facilities qua her treatment and further management. He, therefore, took his daughter for further treatment to Jalandhar. She, however, breathed her last at 4:00 AM immediately on their arrival at Jalandhar.
5. The information qua death of his daughter was given to the police and he had brought her dead body to the hospital at Una at 8:15 am. It was thus reported by PW-1 that his daughter Seema had taken a decision to end her life on account of her maltreatment at the hands of the accused.
6. On the basis of the statement Ext. PW-1/A, FIR Ext. PW-9/A was registered in Police Station Haroli by PW-9 ASI Vijay Kumar. During the course of investigation, inquest papers Ext. PW-1/B were prepared and the post mortem of the dead body got conducted in the hospital at Una. The post mortem report is Ext. PD. On completion of the investigation and on receipt of Chemical Examiner’s report, final report was prepared and filed in the Court.
7. Learned trial Judge, having formed an opinion prima-facie that the deceased was being treated with cruelty, both mental and physical, by the accused persons and as a result thereof she committed suicide has framed charge against them for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC. They, however, not pleaded guilty to the charge. The prosecution, therefore, has produced evidence in support of the charge so framed against each of the accused persons.
8. The material prosecution witnesses are her father Virender Singh (PW-1), brother Amit Kumar (PW-4) and sister-in-law PW-5 Renu. PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, natural father of accused Manoj Kumar did not support the prosecution case and as such was declared hostile. PW-7 Ankush Sharma is a witness to the issuance of sim of cell No. 98057 20482 in the name of deceased Seema as it is he who had identified her before the cell phone company. The remaining witnesses PW-6 HC Vipan Kumar, PW-8 HHC Ashwani Kumar, PW-9 ASI Vijay Kumar, PW-10 Arundeep and PW-11 ASI Gian Chand, being police officials, are formal.
9. Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate assisted by Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, while taking us to the evidence available on record has contended that the telephonic conversation of the deceased with her Bhabhi PW-5 Renu could have been taken as dying declaration and the findings of conviction recorded on sole basis thereof. According to the learned counsel, she had committed suicide within 7 years of her marriage with accused Manoj Kumar. It is not at all proved that the poisonous substance “phosphide” was consumed by the deceased by way of mistake nor any such plea has been raised by the accused persons in their defence. The evidence available on record, according to the learned counsel is suggestive of that all the accused were not only torturing the deceased physically but mentally also. It was, therefore, urged that while raising the presumption as envisaged under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, they all should have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
10. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Thakur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sneh Lata, Advocate has urged that the allegations against accused in the prosecution evidence are not at all sufficient to form an opinion that they have treated the deceased with cruelty and it is only on account of such acts and conduct attributed to them, she had committed suicide. Rather, as per the evidence available on record, they facilitated her to prosecute further studies in the College at Dhaliara from where she did 2 years B.Ed. course. During this period, she had been residing in a rented accommodation at Dhaliara. On the date of occurrence, she was removed to hospital and all the accused were present in the hospital so that better medical facilities could be provided to her. Had the deceased informed her mother Kashmiro Devi over cell phone that on account of her torturing at the hands of the accused persons she had consumed some medicine, the mother or her father PW-1 could have reported the matter to local police there and then. According to Mr. Thakur, it is not the deceased but the call on cell phone was made by accused Manoj Kumar to inform his mother-in-law qua the deceased having consumed poisonous substance and also that she was removed to Una hospital for treatment. The non-examination of Kashmiro Devi, the mother of the deceased speaks in plenty that she has been withheld intentionally and deliberately in order to save her from being subjected to cross-examination. On the way to Una hospital from Jalandhar, accused Des Raj and his wife as well as co-accused Raj Rani were left behind by Virender Singh (PW-1) in his house situated there. Therefore, such conduct of Virender Singh (PW-1) amply demonstrate that he had no complaint against anyone, including the accused persons qua the commission of suicide by his daughter. Had there been any suicide notes left behind by the deceased in the almirahs, as she allegedly disclosed over cell phone to her mother Kashmiro Devi, according to Mr. Thakur, where the same had gone as those were not traceable to the I.O. when search of the room was conducted. It has, therefore, been urged that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted all the three accused of the charge framed against each of them as no case was found to be made out against them.
11. As per the admitted case, the deceased had committed suicide on 10.5.2010 in the matrimonial home at village Panjawar, District Una. However, it is the accused persons who have abetted the commission of suicide by her was due to mal-treatment and torturing at their hands is a question to be adjudicated upon in the light of law of the land and also the evidence as has come on record during the course of trial. However, before that we deem it appropriate to discuss as to what constitutes the harassment of a married woman in the matrimonial home within the meaning of Section 498-A and abetment of commission of suicide by such woman on account of her mal-treatment and torturing at the hands of her in-laws.
12. A bare reading of Section 498-A reveals that subjecting the wife to cruelty by her husband or his relative with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet with their unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or any willful conduct of the husband of such woman or his relative, of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health is sine qua non to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. We are drawing support in this regard from the judgment dated 12.8.2016 of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Cr. Appeal No. 800 of 2008 titled State of H.P. vs. Rajinder Singh and others.
13. If coming to the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to plead and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some person has committed suicide and he/she did so after being instigated by the accused. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Its simple meaning is that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing. If an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order of doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing can be said to have abetted the doing of that thing.
14. It is thus crystal clear that in order to infer the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to plead and prove that one person has instigated another person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, such another person had committed suicide. It is only in that event the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC.
15. In the case of suicidal death, the onus to prove that it is the acts and conduct attributed to the accused alone had instigated the person who had committed suicide to do so is on the prosecution and to raise the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, the factum of the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons immediately before commission of suicide by her is first required to be proved by the prosecution.
16. Now, if adverting to the case in hand, only following instances of cruelty are disclosed from the statement Ext. PW-1/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Virender Singh (PW-1) recorded by the police:
“(i) After marriage, for about three years, the in-laws of his deceased daughter Seema behaved nicely but after that on trivial issues they started quarreling with her.
(ii) When he came to know from his wife Kashmiro Devi about the same, he went to the place of in-laws of his daughter 2-3 times and made them to understand. After treating her nicely for some time, they had been quarreling with her at the pretext that she had no knowledge of performing agricultural work.
17. Now, if coming to the statement of PW-1 Virender Singh, he has quoted the following instances of cruelty towards the deceased against the accused persons:
(i) The accused started taunting the deceased on small family matters like not knowing to milch cattle, clean the house properly and perform agricultural work.
(ii) Accused persons Des Raj and Raj Rani used to instigate accused Manoj Kumar not to give money to the deceased to meet out her day to day expenses.
(iii) Accused Manoj Kumar used to switch off his mobile phone to avoid to attend her calls and as and when on leave, he used to quarrel with her.”
18. If coming to statement of PW-4 Amit Kumar, brother of the deceased, he had different woe to tell because it has come in his statement that:-
(i) The accused used to ill-treat the deceased on small matters and had not been allowing her to cook food nor to talk with her for a pretty long time.
(ii) He accompanied by his brother Vikas and his father Virender Singh (PW-1) visited the place of the accused persons and asked them to treat the deceased nicely in the presence of PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, natural father of accused Manoj Kumar.
(iii) Both accused i.e. Des Raj and Raj Rani proclaimed that they would not allow the deceased to cook food during their life time.
(iv) The deceased was taken by them to the house of PW-2 Sukhdev Singh at Bhabnaur where she remained for 15-20 days. Accused Manoj Kumar came to home on leave and a meeting was organized at Bhabnaur which was attended to by the accused and his father. In the meeting, accused begged pardon for their acts and thereafter deceased came to her matrimonial home at village Panjawar.”
19. The rest of the allegations in the statement of Amit Kumar (PW-4) are similar to that of Virender Singh (PW-1), his father.
20. Now, if coming to the allegations of so called maltreatment and torturing of the deceased as per the statement of complainant under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW-1/A, while in the witness-box as PW-1 and in that of his son Amit Kumar (PW-4), there is no consistency and both while in the witness-box have rather improved their version and given coloured version of the entire episode. In the statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW-1/A, alleged torture of deceased was at the pretext of she was not having any knowledge of performing agricultural affairs, however, while in the witness-box, Virender Singh (PW-1) has come forward with the version that her torturing was at the pretext of she had no knowledge of milching the cattle, cleaning the house properly and performing work, including agricultural work. He has given a different colour to the prosecution story while stating that accused Des Raj and Raj Rani used to instigate accused Manoj Kumar not to give money to the deceased to meet out her day-today expenses and that accused Manoj Kumar in order to avoid to speak to her used to switch off his cell phone. A further story that as and when the said accused used to be on leave had been quarreling with the deceased has also been introduced.
21. The brother of the deceased Amit Kumar (PW-4) has also deposed beyond the allegations in the statement Ext. PW-1/A. In addition to the allegations leveled by his father Virender Singh (PW-1) while in the witness-box against the accused persons, Amit Kumar (PW-4) has different story to tell as according to him, the accused were not allowing the deceased to cook food since pretty long time. He accompanied by his father Virender Singh (PW-1) and brother Vikas had visited the place of the accused persons and asked them to treat the deceased nicely in the matrimonial home in the presence of Sukh Dev (PW-2), the natural father of accused Manoj Kumar. He further tells us that since the accused did not mend their behavior, therefore, they had to shift the deceased to village Bhabnaur, the native place of PW-2 Sukhdev Singh and it is when accused Manoj Kumar came to the house, a meeting attended by both sides had taken place. The deceased came to her matrimonial home at village Panjawar. Interestingly enough, PW-2 Sukhdev Singh while in the witness-box has not supported the prosecution case qua any such meeting having taken place at Bhabnaur in his presence. He was, therefore, declared hostile and allowed to be cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution.
22. It is seen that the prosecution has failed to elicit anything material lending support to its case during his cross-examination. Rather, in his further cross-examination conducted on behalf of the accused, it is stated that he had been visiting the house of the accused off and on and even accused and deceased also used to visit his house. The parents of deceased were also in visiting terms with him, however, they never complained him and his wife against the accused. Since as per the version of Virender Singh (PW-1) in the statement Ext. PW-1/A and also while in the witness-box, it is his wife Kashmiro Devi who apprised him about the so called mal-treatment and torturing of the deceased at the hands of the accused, however, she has not been examined and rather given up being repetitive as per the statement of learned Public Prosecutor recorded separately on 28.9.2010.
23. In our considered opinion, Kashmiro Devi being mother of the deceased was a material witness because in our society, a daughter would normally apprise the mother about her miseries, if any, in the matrimonial home as has come on record of this case also. However, she has been given up intentionally and deliberately and may be on account of apprehension of the prosecution that she may not support its case or to save her from her cross-examination by learned defence counsel.
24. Interestingly enough, even for the arguments sake if it is believed that the deceased was being treated with cruelty by the accused persons, it is not the case of the prosecution that her torturing and mal-treatment was for the demand of dowry or any valuable security by her husband accused Manoj Kumar or his parents accused Des Raj and Raj Rani. There is not even a whisper also in this regard in the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. It cannot also be believed by any stretch of imagination that she was being tortured at the pretext of having no knowledge of milching cattle, cleaning the house properly or performing the domestic affairs, including agricultural work for the reason that as per the own case of the prosecution the deceased was treated by the accused nicely in the matrimonial home for a period of three years. Not only this, but she rather was allowed by them to complete her 2 years B.Ed. course from Govt. College Dhaliara, District Kangra. While pursuing the said course, she had been residing in rented accommodation at Dhaliara. Therefore, the accused persons who allowed the deceased to prosecute her further studies even after marriage cannot be said to be so cruel towards her and as a result thereof she had opted for putting an end to her life and that too when a minor son born to her out of her wed-lock with accused Manoj Kumar was dependent upon her.
25. In view of the contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements, as noticed hereinabove, the allegations of cruelty as has come on record in the statements of Virender Singh (PW-1) and Amit Kumar (PW-4) are nothing else but merely an afterthought leveled with an idea to implicate the accused persons in this case falsely. Otherwise also, the so called comments/taunting being made by the accused against the deceased that she had no knowledge of milching cattle, cleaning the house properly and doing household chores, including agricultural work were not of such a nature to have derived the deceased to have committed suicide. It is also not proved with the help of cogent and reliable evidence that accused Manoj Kumar had not been paying money to the deceased to meet out her day-to-day expenses on the instigation of accused Des Raj and Raj Rani. Had it been so, it is not known as to upon whom she was dependant qua her day-today needs and also during the period when she pursued her studies in Government College Dhaliara because it is nowhere the case of the prosecution that she was being maintained by her father Virender Singh (PW-1) or any one else.
26. The prosecution could have also proved with the help of details of calls that accused Manoj Kumar in order to avoid to speak with deceased used to switch off his cell phone. No such effort, however, has been made and such allegations seem to be leveled against the accused persons just for their implication in a false case. We, therefore, are not in agreement with learned counsel representing the victim of the occurrence i.e. the appellant herein that it is on account of maltreatment of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons, they abetted the commission of suicide by her within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is in this view of the matter the respondent-State also seem to have not chosen to file appeal against the impugned judgment.
27. Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate, learned counsel representing the appellant has vehemently urged that the conversation of the deceased with her mother over cell phone as has come on record by way of testimony of Virender Singh (PW-1) and Amit Kumar (PW-4) as well as PW-5 Renu should have been treated as dying declaration and the findings of conviction recorded on the basis thereof.
28. True it is that a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 319 of 2012, titled State of H.P. vs. Ramesh Chand decided on 16.7.2016 has held that a dying declaration can be made at any time and in the presence of anyone and need not to be made in the presence of a Doctor, a Gazetted Officer or an Executive Magistrate, however, with the rider that it would be a different matter as to whether corroboration thereto is required or not. Not only this, but a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in MANU/DE/0408/2016 : 2016 (2) JCC 1099, titled Ajay @ Sunder Pal vs. State, has went one step further while holding that even a call on phone can also be treated as dying declaration if the record thereof is produced and put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused to him thereby. Also that failure to state exact time of making of phone call and on putting the same to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., if he failed to show any prejudice caused to him thereby, the failure to state exact time of phone call by the witness(s) is not fatal to the prosecution case.
29. The legal principles discussed and settled in the judgment(s) supra, however, are not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of this case at all for the reason that as per Ext. PW-1/A, the call was made by the deceased to her mother Kashmiro Devi regarding she having consumed some medicine on account of her torturing and maltreatment at the hands of the accused. It is his wife who informed him about this over his cell phone at 8:45 PM. As noticed supra, Smt. Kashmiro Devi has not been examined. In our considered opinion, she would have been the best person to have deposed something authentic and genuine qua the call if made by the deceased to her. No doubt, it is proved from the statement of PW-7 Ankush Sharma that cell No. 98057-20482 was that of the deceased. One call was made from this cell phone over cell phone No. 98154-97652 on 10.5.2010 at 21:11:19 hours. As per the testimony of PW-4 Amit Kumar cell No. 98154 97652 was that of his mother. As per the call details Ext. PW-3/B, another call was made from cell No. 98154-97652 over cell No. 98057 20482 of the deceased at 21:30:57 hours. Not only this but two calls were made from cell No. 95929-16331 over cell No. 98057-20482 of deceased on that very day at 22:23:34 hours and 22.24:17 hours. Therefore, while it is only one call which has been made from the cell No. of deceased over cell number of her mother Kashmiro Devi on that day at 21:11:19 hours, 3 calls as referred to hereinabove were made over her cell number i.e. one from that of her mother and two calls from cell No. 95929-16331. These calls have been made in continuity and in case deceased had consumed poisonous substance, at the most she could have made a call only to her mother and could have not attended three other calls that too in continuity. Otherwise also, it is not the prosecution case that after having conversation with the deceased her mother Kashmiro Devi had made again a call to her from her own cell No. 98154 97652 and that the same was also attended by the deceased. Therefore, the plea raised by the accused in their defence that it is accused Manoj Kumar who had informed the mother of the deceased about she having consumed some poisonous substance and that she has been taken to hospital at Una seems to be nearer to the factual position. Since said Kashmiro Devi allegedly informed her husband Virender Singh (PW-1) at 8:45 PM over his cell phone that the deceased as per the call received from her had consumed some poisonous substance, it is not known as to how any such information could have been given because alleged call was made by the deceased to her mother at 21:11:19 hours i.e. 9:11 pm. True it is that even if the time of call is not correctly given by the witness in his statement, the same is hardly of any consequence in view of ratio of the judgment in Ajay @ Sunder Pal’s case (supra). However, in the case in hand for want of cogent and reliable evidence which could have come on record by way of testimony of Kashmiro Devi, it cannot be believed that any such call was made by the deceased which could have been treated as dying declaration. Being so, the ratio of the judgments in Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another V. State of Andhra Pradesh, MANU/SC/0508/1993 : (1993) 2 SCC 684, Ramesh Kumar V. State of Chhatisgarh, MANU/SC/0654/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 618, Krishan V. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1125/2012 : (2013) 3 SCC 280 and Mohd. Hoshan, A.P. and another V. State of A.P., MANU/SC/0796/2002 : (2002) 7 SCC 414 are distinguishable on facts, hence not attracted in the case in hand.
30. True it is that the prosecution has examined PW-5 Renu, sister-in-law of the deceased. Nothing, however, has come in the statement of Virender Singh (PW-1) that besides Kashmiro Devi aforesaid, the deceased had conversation over cell phone with PW-5 Renu also. Nothing to this effect has even come in Ext. PW-1/A which contains immediate version qua the manner in which the occurrence did take place. No doubt, as per the version of PW-4 Amit Kumar, the deceased had also spoken with him over cell phone and she even expressed her desire to speak to his wife PW-5 Renu. This part of the prosecution story, however, seems to be introduced later on with an idea to implicate the accused persons in this case falsely. As a matter of fact, no call seems to be made by the deceased over the cell phone of her mother and rather it is accused Manoj Kumar who had called his mother-in-law just to apprise her about the deceased having consumed some poisonous substance. Being so, the evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW-5 Renu that deceased apprised her over telephone qua she is mentally upset because of behavior of the 3 accused and that she had consumed poison, therefore, this witness should take care of her son cannot be believed to be true by any stretch of imagination. Her further version that the deceased expressed her desire that it is her brothers who alone may lit her pyre is also an afterthought and the story to this effect was engineered to implicate the accused falsely in this case. Had any call been received by the mother of deceased or PW-5 Renu to the effect that the deceased had left two letters in the almirah which could not be traced out during the search of the room conducted by the police, her testimony that after the deceased talked to her mother she telephoned accused Manoj Kumar also seems to be an afterthought and does not connect the call made on that day from the cell phone of Kashmiro Devi over that of the deceased for the reason that Kashmiro would have made call on the cell phone of accused Manoj Kumar and not on that of the deceased. Therefore, the story that the deceased after consuming poisonous substance had called her mother and also spoken with her brother and sister-in-law is nothing but merely an afterthought. Otherwise also, had any such call been received, the first and foremost step the complainant party would have taken was to have apprised the police about the incident. It has not been done and to the contrary they went to the hospital at Una and noticed that all the accused were present and getting the deceased treated medically there. Not only this but deceased was taken to Jalandhar in the vehicle arranged by the accused. On way back to Una after her death at Jalandhar PW1 dropped his wife, accused Desh Raj and accused Raj Rani in his house at Jalandhar, may be either they were tired on account of fatigue or their ailment. Such conduct of the complainant leads to the only conclusion that initially the complainant party had not suspected the hands of anyone in the commission of suicide by the deceased and the statement Ext.PW1/A on the basis whereof FIR has been registered, seems to be lodged on the next day i.e. 11.5.2010 at 9:40 A.M. after due deliberation.
31. PW-2 Sukhdev Singh, natural father of accused Manoj Kumar has not supported the prosecution case qua he accompanied the parents of deceased to the village of accused who were asked not to maltreat the deceased. He has also not supported the prosecution case that the deceased was taken by him to his house at village Bhabnour where she stayed with him. The remaining prosecution case that accused Raj Rani had been instigating accused Manoj Kumar against the deceased and she had consumed poison on account of her maltreatment at the hands of accused was also denied being wrong. True it is that PW-2 was natural father of accused Manoj Kumar, however, since he has caused major dent in the prosecution story while in the witness box, therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
32. The remaining prosecution witnesses PW-3 HHC Dharam Pal, PW-6 HC Vipan Kumar, PW-8 HHC Ashwani Kumar, PW-9 ASI Vijay Kumar, PW-10 Constable Arun Deep and PW-10 ASI Gian Chand are formal, as they remained associated during the investigation of the case in one way or the other. Their evidence at the most could have been used as link evidence had the prosecution otherwise been able to bring guilt home to the accused by way of producing cogent and reliable evidence.
33. PW-7 Ankush is also formal because it is on his identification; sim No. 98057-20482 was issued by the concerned cellphone company. The prosecution has even failed to prove that accused Manoj Kumar was not depositing the money in the accounts of deceased so that she could have utilized the same to meet her day-to-day expenses. Therefore, the plea of accused in their defence that the money was being deposited in her account regularly except for the months of December, 2009 to February, 2010 and April, 2010, when the said accused was on leave appears to be nearer to the factual position.
34. Learned counsel representing the victim-appellant has also relied upon the legal principles settled in Mohd. Hoshan’s judgment cited supra and also in Anand Mohan Sen and Another V. State of West Bengal, MANU/SC/7663/2007 : (2007) 10 SCC 774, Sahebrao and another V. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/8140/2006 : (2006) 9 SCC 794 and Mudupula Raji Reddy V. State of A.P. (2004) 13 SCC 128 to persuade this Court that the acts of cruelty attributed to the accused persons towards the deceased are within the domain of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and also that the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-5 leave no manner of doubt that the deceased committed suicide on account of such acts of cruelty on the part of accused, however, unsuccessfully for the reason that legal principles settled in the judgments supra are entirely on different sets of facts and circumstances in each case, hence not attracted in the case in hand.
35. True it is that this incident has taken away the life of a young woman aged 30 years within seven years of her marriage with accused Manoj Kumar. The presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, however, cannot be drawn in this case because the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial onus upon it that deceased has committed suicide only on account of her harassment by the accused persons. Presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act cannot also be drawn in this case because it is not proved that the accused used to demand dowry from the deceased and had been torturing her mentally as well as physically in connection with their demand for dowry.
36. As a matter of fact, the present is a case where nothing suggesting that the deceased was being tortured or harassed by the accused persons in connection with demand of dowry or otherwise or that the degree of cruelty was so high that she could not make comparison between life and death and rather in such a state of mind, chosen the pangs of death has come on record. True it is that in normal circumstances, no person is expected to take such a drastic step to do away with his/her life, that too, without there being any cause, however, present is not a case where it can be said that the accused persons had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.
37. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds furnished by the accused persons shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.
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