Daulat Singh vs State of M.R

Rakesh Saksena, J.

The appellant has been convicted by the Additional Sessions, Judge, Narsinghpur by judgment dated 26.7.1999, in S.T.No. 14/89, u/s 306 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

Deceased Dammobai was married to appellant about eight years before her death which took place on 20th July, 1998. According to prosecution, Dammobai was found to have committed suicide by hanging. It is said that after the marriage, appellant and his parents, who were also accused before the trial court, started harassing Dammobai because of her not performing the domestic work properly in the house. Feeling harassed and annoyed, she committed suicide by hanging. On being informed to police, a marg was recorcded and after that, an offence u/s 302, 201 I.P.C. was registered. During investigation, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. J.L. Jain performed the post mortem examination, whrein, except a legature mark on the neck, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against three accused persons and the case was committed for trial. The trial Court framed the charges u/s 302,306,302 read with section 201 I.P.C. Accused abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication,.

Prosecution mainly examined PW 2 Motilal, PW 4 Ramlal, father of the deceased, PW 5 Nanhibai, Bhabhi of the deceased, PW 6 Premlal, cousin of the deceased to prove its case at the trial.

After appreciation of evidence, learned trial Judge acquitted the appellant from the charge of the offence u/s 302 and 201 I.P.C, but, held him guilty u/s 306 I.P.C. and convicted him accordingly. Other two accused were acquitted of all the charges.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate, submitted that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, no offence u/s 306 I.P.C. could be made out. He submitted that since the death of deceased had taken place after more than seven years of the marriage, no presumption u/s 113-A of the evidence Act could be drawn. He submitted that in the circumstance of the case, for proving the offence u/s 306 I.P.C., the prosecution was obliged to prove the. ingredients of the offence u/s 107 I.P.C. i.e. abetment to commit offence,then only the appellant could be held guilty u/s 306 I.P.C. He also submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses, who happened to be the family members of the deceased, is vague and inconsistent, therefore the trial Court had erred in placing reliance on their evidence.

Shri Pramod Choubey, learned Govt. Advocate for the State submitted that the prosecution has amply proved the impugned offence against the appellant by adducing the evidence of father of the deceased and other witnesses. He submitted that from the evidence of prosecution witnesses it is proved that the deceased was being subjected to cruelty due to which she was driven to commit suicide which, in the circumstances of the case, amounted to abetment to commit the suicide.

I have heard the counsel of both sides and carefully perused the evidence and material on recor0d. P.W.4 Ramlal, father of the deceased, has stated that his daughter Dammobai was married to appellant about 8 years ago. She had complained to him that accused persons used to cause her marpeet whereupon he had assured her that he would take her back. On the next day she had committed suicide. The statement of this witness has many inconsistencies and it is also contradictory. He has made omissions in saying that when his daughter was insisting to go with him, he did not take her with him. The statement about beating her is also omission in the police statement Ex. D-1. In para 10 of his statement the cross examination, he said that his daughter had told him that her mother-in-law had beaten her on account of her not doing the domestic work properly. He further said that he made her to understand that she should work in the house because every girl has to do it. From his evidence, it does not transpire that the appellant had treated the deceased in such manner that it could be said that his conduct was likely to drive her to commit suicide. P.W.2 Motilal has stated that when he had gone to the house of accused, he had seen the deceased hanging with a rope. Her body was brought down and it was made lie down on the ground. In cross examination, this witness admitted that the deceased was a loving girl, therefore, accused did not permit her to go to the field. He stated that he never saw any quarrel between the accused persons and the deceased. He stated that a day before the incident, the father of the deceased had come at her house. Dammobai had expressed her desire to go with him but he did not take her. Next day she committed suicide.

P.W.5 Nanhibai, who happened to be the wife of the deceased''s brother, stated that Dammobai used to come her parents house frequently. Sometimes she complained that she was maltreated and was beaten by her in-laws, therefore, she did not want to go back to her in-laws house. She stated that Dammobai had told her that she had no problem about food and clothing, but when she refused to work, she was maltreated. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that these statements were omissions in police statement of withness Ex. D-2. P.W.6 Premlal, a cousin of the deceased, also stated that last year when Dammobai had met him on the road in Chhindwara then she disclosed him that her parents in law had assaulted her, but, this part of his statement was also an omission on his police statement Ex. D-3.

On going through the evidence of material witnesses, it appears that their evidence is vague, discrepant and contradictory. Witnesses have made omissions on material points. Though it appears that there occurred frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant and the accused persons over the domestic work in the house, but the question is whether such maltreating or off and on beating of deceased over domestic work amounted to abetment to commit suicide. The presumption enumerated in section 113-A of the Evidence Act will not be attracted in the circumstances of the case as the death of the deceased had taken place after 7 years of the marriage, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide.

Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment. From reading section 306 and 107 I.P.C. together, it is clear that if any person instigates any other person to do a thing or engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for doing that thing if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance or that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission in doing that thing then he can be said to have abetted the doing of that act. In the present case, there is no such evidence on record to show that the harassment or maltreatment of the deceased was with a view to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. On elaborate consideration of the evidence on the record, I am also of the opinion that there was no "willful conduct" on the part of the appellant which could ordinarily drive the deceased to commit suicide. The alleged conduct of maltreatment on account of deceased not doing domestic work properly, cannot be described of a gravity of that nature which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide. In ordinary course, such quarrel, abuses or maltreatment do not drive a woman to take extreme step committing suicide. Since there was no grave or serious provocation by the appellant, he cannot be held to have abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.

The Supreme Court had observed in State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another, that 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 where cruelty meted out to the victim had infact induced her to end the life by committing suicide if it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary 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 raising a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

In view of the foregoing discussion of law and the circumstances of the present case, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge u/s 306 I.P.C.