Bhawar Singh vs State of M.P.

I.S. Siirivastaya, J.—The appeal has been preferred u/s 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Appellant Bhawarsingh being aggrieved by the judgment dated 13/08/1996 passed by the Court of Shri R.Y. Durve, Sessions Judge, Dhar in Special Case No. 385/1995, by which the Appellant has been convicted under Sections 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months.

According to the prosecution story, deceased Pepabai wife of the Appellant Bhawarsingh committed suicide on 07/10/1994, hence marg No. 32/1994 was registered at police station -Kanvvan, District-Dhar. After investigation, it was found that deceased Pepabai was married with the Appellant three years before her death. She went to her in-laws'' house and thereafter, she went to Indore with her husband. Her husband was keeping a lady Daryabai, with whom he was having illicit relation. Due to this dispute, the Appellant left the deceased to her parents'' house, where she was living with her father and mother. In the night of 07/10/1994, deceased Pepabai committed suicide, hence crime No. 112/1995 was registered against the Appellant and after investigation and filing of the challan, the Appellant was convicted after trial as mentioned herein above.

It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The said lady Daryabai with whom allegations of illicit relation of the Appellant has been implicated is the sister of the Appellant. She was residing at Indore and the Appellant was residing with her. Long before of the incident, the Appellant was not living with his wife Pepabai, but his wife Pepabai was living with her father and mother and the accused/Appellant did not come to deceased Pepabai before her death. The Appellant has not abetted the commission of the suicide and hence, the appeal be accepted.

It has been argued on behalf of the Respondent/State that the case was proved on the basis of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, hence the appeal being devoid of merit, be dismissed.

Considered the arguments. Record of the Trial Court perused.

There is no evidence before the Trial Court that at the time of the suicide, deceased Pepabai was living with her husband, but it is the prosecution case supported by the prosecution witnesses that at the time of suicide by Pepabai, she was living at her father''s home with her father and mother and since last four months of the date of the incident, the Appellant did not visit his in-laws'' house and met with Pepabai.

Ayodhyabai PW-2, mother of the deceased Pepabai has deposed that deceased Pepabai told her that the Appellant was keeping second lady, hence Pepabai could not live with her husband. In cross-examination, she has admitted that Daryabai is the sister of the Appellant in relation and she has two children. Champalal is the husband of Daryabai living at Indore and the Appellant was also living with Daryabai.

Rajubai PW-4 is the sister of the deceased Pepabai and has deposed that after four months of the marriage, the Appellant left the deceased Pepabai to her parents. When Pepabai met her, Pepabai told her that the Appellant had left her after beating and she informed that he was keeping second lady Daryabai. She thought that if the Appellant will come, then she would send Pepabai with him, but the accused/Appellant never turned up. In cross-examination, she has deposed that Pepabai told her that Daryabai was the sister of the father of the Appellant. Deceased Pepabai lived with her husband for twenty days and thereafter came back to her parents'' home and after four months of that, Pepabai committed suicide. At that time, the Appellant was living at Indore. The Appellant had beaten Pepabai; this fact was not narrated by her to anyone and has deposed at the first time in the Court.

From the above evidence, it is clear that at the time of death of Pepabai, she was living with her father''s house with her father and mother. From last four months of the incident, the Appellant did not visit her in this period. Daryabai who has alleged to have illicit relation with the Appellant was the sister or sister of the father of the accused. Daryabai was living with her husband Champalal at Indore. As the Appellant was serving at Indore, therefore, he was living with Daryabai. Therefore, there is no evidence in this case that it was the Appellant, who abetted the commission of suicide by Pepabai. For the suicide, sometimes the mental state and ideas of the deceased are also responsible. If by suspicion at the character of her husband, deceased has committed suicide, then the accused/husband cannot be held liable.

For the offence of abetment of suicide, the prosecution has to prove that the Appellant abetted the commission of suicide. In Bhagwan Das v. karter Singh and Ors. 2000 (1) SCC 664, it has been held that accemere harassment of wife by her husband or in-laws, due to disputes or differences, without anything more, pursuant to which if wife commits suicide, held, it will not attract Section 306 read with 107 of the IPC. It often happens that there are disputes and discords in the matrimonial home and a wife is harassed by the husband or her in-laws. This, however, would not by itself and without something more attract Section 306 read with 107 of the IPC. This mere harassment of wife by husband due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC, if the wife commits suicide".

It has been held in the case of Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab 2004 (13) SCC 129 that:

12... More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commissi on of offence u/s 306 of the IPC.

In the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, it has been held that:

17...the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

10 Therefore, on the basis of above discussion, it is concluded that the Appellant was not liable to be convicted u/s 306 of the IPC, hence the appeal deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the Appellant is acquitted from the charges u/s 306 of the IPC. The Appellant is on bail; his bail bonds are discharged. The fine, if deposited be refunded to him.