Ashok Kumar vs The State of Punjab

I.S. Tiwana, J.—Ashok Kumar appellant stands convicted and sentenced to ten years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-or in default of payment of fine, to further R.I. for six months u/s 306, Indian Penal Code; and to three months'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- or in case of default of payment of fine, to further R.J. for one month, u/s 498A, I.P.C. for abetting his wife Smt. Kiran Bala to commit suicide. He was tried along with Rajinder Kumar and Nirmala, his maternal uncle and aunt respectively and his mother Smt. Lajo Devi. As a result of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, found that so far as the latter three were concerned, their false implication could not be ruled out. Thus they were given the benefit of doubt. So far as the appellant is concerned, his conclusion was as follows : �

So far as Ashok Kumar accused is concerned, I am of the considered view that it was he who abetted Kiran Bala to commit suicide and subjected her to cruelty as presumption with regard to abetment of suicide by Kiran Bala is to be drawn in view of the provisions of Section 113A of Evidence Act, as she committed suicide within a period of seven years (months ?) from the date marriage with Ashok Kumar accused anti as such I hold him guilty for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code and convict him thereunder.

Briefly the facts as available on the record are as follows.

The appellant was married to Kiran Bala deceased on May 4, 1984 and since the marriage they were residing at Abohar in the house of Rajinder Kumar, the maternal uncle of the appellant, as tenants. Rajinder Kumar and Nirmala also lived in the same very house though in a different portion. Lajo Devi, mother of the appellant, was concededly living at Ferozepur.

Kiran Bala died on Nov. 18, 1984, and as per the report of the Chemical Examiner, dt/- Dec. 13, 1984 (Exhibit PA) she died by consuming Dragno-Phosphorus compound (insecticide).

During the days of occurrence, Banwari Lai, father of Kiran Bala, was running a Military Canteen at Gwalior and his wife, Kamla, i.e., mother of the deceased was residing at Ferozepur. She received a message on Nov. 18, 1984 at about 5.30 p.m. through Sanjay, brother of the appellant, that Kiran Bala had suddenly died and she should reach Abohar. She informed her Jeth (husband''s elder brother) Nagar Mai at Jullundur on telephone about the death of Kiran Bala and asked him to join her at the earliest. Nagar Mai reached Ferozepur on the next day, i.e. Nov. 19,1984, and then left for Abohar in the company of Kamla Devi and Anil, her son, on reaching Abohar, they found the dead body of Kiran Bala in the house of the appellant and thereafter Kamla Devi went to the police station to lodge a report with the police. The said report is Exhibit PG. It is mentioned therein as to when the deceased was married to the appellant and how she had received the message about her death through Sanjay, brother of the appellant, and that she suspected some foul play on account of the suddenness of the death of Kiran Bala. On the receipt of this information, ASI Ram Singh, P.W. 6, of Police Station, Abohar, went to the spot and prepared the Inquest Report, Exhibit PE. He recorded the statements of Smt. Kamla Devi, Nagar Mai uncle of the deceased, Anil Kumar her brother, the appellant, Shashi Bala and Shanti other tenants in the house of Rajinder Kumar. The crux of the statements of the three witnesses, namely, Kamla Devi, Nagar Mai and Anil Kumar, was that the deceased had met a sudden death and therefore the cause of the death should be investigated after getting the post-mortem examination on the dead body. What is conspicuously missing from these statements is the fact that the deceased suffered any cruelty or any indifferent treatment at the hands of the appellant or the persons who were tried along with him. The stand of the appellant before the Investigator at the time of the preparation of this report was that on that day, i.e., Nov. 18, 1984, he was on duty as an Electrician in the Cooperative Spinning Mills, Abohar from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m. and on his return from that job, he after taking his meals at the house, left for the barber''s shop for having a shave. On his return to the house after some time he found that his co-accused, namely, Rajinder Kumar (his maternal uncle), Nirmala (his maternal aunt), Nathu Ram and his wife Shanti, and Mange Ram and his wife Shashi Bala, other tenants in that house, were present near the cot on which his wife Kiran Bala was lying in an unconscious condition. On enquiry they told that firstly Kiran Bala vomited and then she went to the latrine to ease herself and thereafter she laid down herself on the cot and was in that condition. They further informed him that when they enquired from her as to what had happened to her, she told that she was not feeling well. She also told these people that her husband, i.e. the appellant, should be sent for. On getting this information he went to Dr. Jash Lal, who lives in Street No. 6, Abohar and by the time he brought the said doctor, another doctor, namely, Subhash Chander, who lives in Street No. 3 of that town, had already been brought by Nathu Ram and the said doctor had already given two injections to the deceased. When Dr. Jash Lai, whom the appellant had brought, examined the deceased, he declared her dead. On this he informed his father Om Prakash at Ferozepur Cantt. on telephone and also requested him to inform his in-laws1 family. That is how Kamla was informed by his brother Sanjay. He further stated before the Investigator that his parents reached Abohar at about 2 a.m. but since his mother-in-law, Smt. Kamla, had not been able to reach by that time, the dead body was kept as it was. Only on the next morning when Smt. Kamla along with her son Anil and brother-in-law Nagar Mai from Jullundur reached Abohar at about 11 a.m. and the inquest report had been prepared, the dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. This statement of his was duly supported by Shashi Bala wife of Mange Ram, who too were the tenants in the same house, in all material particualrs.

Thereafter it was only on Dec. 24,1984 when Banwari Lai, P.W. 2, father of the deceased, came to Abohar that he made a complaint Exhibit PF to the'' police on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exhibit PF/i was registered on Dec. 26,1984. As a result of the investigation that followed, the appellant alone was challaned and Ors., namely, Rajinder Kumar, Nirmala and Lajo were mentioned in Column No. 2 of the report u/s 173, Cr. P. C. but were later summoned by the Court u/s 319, Cr. P. C. to face the trial.

As has been pointed out above in the opening part of this judgment, the appellant alone has been held guilty of abetting the commission of suicide by Kiran Bala, his wife, in the light of the provisions of Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. This provision of law as brought on the statute with effect from Dec. 26, 1983, lays down that when the question arises as to whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years (months ?) from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume having regard to all the circumstances of the case that such a suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. It is, therefore, manifest that unless the husband - we are not concerned with his relatives in the instant appeal - can be held guilty of subjecting the deceased to cruelty, no presumption of abetting the deceased in committing suicide is available under this provision. Mr. Ghai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, forcefully urges that in the instant case there is no material worth the name on which a conclusive finding can be recorded that the appellant was in any way guilty of cruelty towards the deceased prior to her death. Having perused the evidence on record, rather minutely, with the help of the learned Counsel for the parties, I find considerable merit in this submission of the learned Counsel.

In order to sustain this aspect of the case that the appellant or his relations, i.e., his maternal uncle and aunt were guilty of cruelty towards the deceased, the Court has primarily relied upon the evidence of P.W. 2 Banwari Lai, father of the deceased; P.W. 3 Kamla, mother of the deceased and one Harpal Singh, P.W. 4.

I first take up the evidence of Kamla, P.W. 3. As has already been pointed out above, she on receipt of information about the death of Kiran Bala through Sanjay, brother of the appellant, reached Abohar on Nov. 19,1984 at about 11 a.m. along with her son Anil and brother-in-law Nagar Mai, who lived at Jullundur. Statements of all these three persons were recorded by the Investigator while preparing the inquest report, Exhibit PE, but none of them uttered a single word at that time to disclose that the behaviour of the appellant or any of his relations was oppressive or in any manner cruel towards the deceased. It is only during the trial that she as P.W. 3 has stated that when Kiran Bala had come to her house for the Raksha Bandhan ceremony, she told her that she was being maltreated and was virtually confined to a room by the accused as the appellant was not satisfied with the dowry she had brought at the time of marriage and that he was particularly insisting upon getting a scooter in dowry. She claims to have informed her husband about all this through a letter sent to him at his Gwalior address. She also stated that a week after the receipt of this letter Banwari Lai, her husband, reached Ferozepur, and after confirming about the talk which had taken place between her and the deceased, left for Abohar to see the latter. This part of her statement is affirmed by her husband as P.W. 2.1 however, find it difficult to accept this delayed version of this witness. She candidly admitted in her cross-examination that she did not disclose to the police during investigation that the appellant was demanding a scooter in dowry. She pleaded ignorance when questioned as to whether she had informed the police about the above noted version that she had conveyed to her husband what the deceased had told her about the oppressive and cruel behaviour of the appellant towards her through a letter. Her cross-examination in this regards reads as follows: �

I did not state before the police that the accused were demanding scooter. I do not remember if I stated before the police that I informed my husband through a letter about maltreatment of Bimla and my husband came about after a week. (Confronted with Ex. DC where it is not so recorded)...

I did not state in Ex. PG about the maltreatment, demand of dowry, scooter and confining of Bimla in the room...

I do not know if I stated in Ex. DC that Ashok and Bimla came to our house on the Raksha Bandhan ceremony, and on that day Bimla told me that she was being maltreated at the hands of the accused or that she was confined in a room or there was demand of scooter. (Confronted with Ex. DC where it is not so recorded).

Similary the evidence of Banwari Lai, P.W. 2, father of the deceased, also does not inspire any confidence so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned. He does talk of the letter which he claims to have received from his wife about the complaint made by the deceased on the Raksha Bandhan day to her mother, yet neither that letter has been produced on record nor there is any other authentic material to support this version. It is the admitted case that the deceased had passed her Intermediate Examination and had also studied for two years for her Degree Course by the time she was married. Yet no letter or other written material is in existence to show that she ever complained of any maltreatment or cruelty at the hands of the appellant or any of his relations. His entire evidence in this regard is based on the information he gathered from his wife, i.e., Kamla, P.W. 3, whose statement, as already pointed out by me above, is not worth reliance. Further the following extract from his cross-examination also makes his evidence in this regard as unreliable : �

I did not state in Ex. DA that I learnt from my wife that Bimla came on Raksha Bandhan ceremony and told that the accused were maltreating her or that I shall come during Holi holidays and arrange for scooter.

As a matter of fact he has repeatedly been confronted with his statement recorded u/s 161, Cr. P. C, i.e., Ex. DA and PF on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was recorded by the police to belie his statement in all material particulars. It is clearly discernible from his cross-examination that in his anxiety to involve the appellant for the death of his daughter he has made material improvements over his earlier statements, i.e., Exhibits DB and PF. There is yet another piece of evidence, i.e., statement of Harpal Singh, P.W. 4, to which a reference has been made by the learned Counsel for the respondent to show that as a matter of fact the deceased was being treated cruelly by the appellant and his relations, but that statement deserves to be read only to be rejected. This witness has disclosed that since his sister was married at Bakain, a place at a distance of about 15 kilometres from Abohar, and since Abohar fell up the way if one had to go to Bakain to which place he had been going quite often, he was asked by Banwari Lai and Kamla Devi, P.Ws. 2 and 3, respectively, to visit the house of Kiran Bala deceased whenever he happened to pass through Abohar. It was on one such occasion, i.e., about two months before the occurrence that he went to see Kiran Bala when she disclosed that since her parents had not sent the promised scooter as a gift or a piece of dowry to the appellant, she was repeatedly being given beatings by him and his maternal uncle and aunt. He claims to have later informed Kamla, P.W. 3, all about it. This version of his stands completely shattered during the cross-examination wherein he has repeatedly been confronted with his police statement, Exhibit DE.

Above all this the conduct of the appellant just after the death of the deceased in informing his in-laws'' family through his brother Sanjay and waiting for them till the next day before disposing of the dead body and stating the material facts in detail at the time of the preparation of the Inquest Report, Exhibit PE in the presence of P.W. 3 and her son Anil Kumar and Nagar Mai, her brother-in-law, completely makes the version of the prosecution doubtful. From the reading of the evidence as a whole I am satisfied that the prosecution witnesses, and more particularly the parents of the deceased have only tried to improve upon their statements to attribute cruelty to the appellant towards his deceased-wife Kamla, with a view to rope him in for the offence.

For the reasons recorded above, I accept this appeal and while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, acquit the appellant of the charges for which he was tried.