Kailash Nath vs State of Haryana

A.N. Jindal, J.—Accused-appellant Kailash Nath (herein referred as ''the accused'') having been married twice could not succeed in his married life. He divorced his first wife and the second died of some ailment and this was the third wife, who committed suicide within two years of marriage, for which he had to face trial u/s 306 IPC. The trial court vide judgment dated 12.8.2004, convicted him u/s 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.

Brief resume of facts is that complainant Shakuntla Devi (herein referred as ''the complainant'') wife of late Gian Chand resident of Jalandhar Cantt. had married her daughter namely Babli alias Sushma Devi (since deceased) on 12.5.2001 with the accused with the clear understanding that she had already undergone an operation for tumor in the uterus and she may not conceive. However, immediately after marriage, the accused started compelling her that if she cannot conceive, she should play role to arrange his marriage to her another daughter i.e. younger sister of his wife. The accused started harassing and subjected her to cruelty on account of her infertility. Babli @ Sushma having fed up with this continuous behaviour of the accused ended her life by consuming some poisonous substance and died in the hospital on 1.11.2003.

On the aforesaid statement of the complainant made on 2.11.2003 before SI Prem Singh, ruqa Ex.PA/PJ was sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the accused. The case was investigated. Post mortem examination was got conducted upon her. After recording statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation accused was challaned.

On finding a prima facie case, he was charged u/s 306 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Shakuntla Devi (PW1), Ravinder Kumar (PW2), Ram Pat Ram (PW3), C. Sanjay Kumar (PW4), C. Subhash Chander (PW5), C. Lakhwant Singh (PW6), C. Prem Singh (PW7), Dr. Umesh Mehta (PW8), Dr. S.L. Verma (PW9), Dr. G.L. Dhull (PW10), SI Prem Singh (PW11) and Inspector Bhullan Singh (PW12).

When examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded his false implication. However, he examined Dr. Meenu Thakur (DW1) in his defence.

On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial court while holding that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide convicted and sentenced him accordingly.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

There are two star witnesses in the case. One is the complainant i.e. mother of the deceased who appeared as PW-1 and the other is Ram Pat Ram (PW3) who is the uncle. The complainant while appearing as PW-1 re-iterated all the circumstances leading to the consuming of the poison by her and leaving this world for ever. No sane lady hailing from the poor family, whose father was no more in the world would end her life within two years of marriage without any rhyme or reason. It has come in evidence that the accused had no male child of his own and he was having girl child which was adopted by him, still he had arranged the marriage with the deceased so that he could bring her up. But, he changed his mind and started to keep an evil eye on the sister of deceased to marry with her in a greed to procreate the male child. The testimony of the complainant having been tested on the altar of cross examination stood proved to be trustworthy. She being the member of the family could unfold the circumstances which she and her daughter had to undergo before the commission of the suicide. She has duly narrated that the accused was made to understand at the time of marriage that Sushma may not conceive. This was one of the causes to marry her with the person whose two wives had already died. This appears to be helplessness of the complainant she being the widow and having no source of income had to marry her daughter to such a person. But, it was unfortunate that there was no end of tyranny on the part of the accused who after third marriage started harassing Sushma Devi also and pressing her that she may play role for marrying her sister with him. With regard to cause of her death, she has also deposed that her daughter died after taking some poisonous substance. From the evidence, ill conduct of the accused appears to be serious one. The MLR (Ex.PG) reveals that Sushma, after she took the poison, was not got admitted in the hospital by the accused but she was taken to the hospital by one Vinod Kumar a neighbourer. This also expresses the state of cruelty of the accused. The complainant (PW1) during cross examination explained that her daughter Sushma had made a complaint about the cruelty of the accused several times and his demand to marry with her second daughter. It may further be observed that after Sushma was poisoned or had taken poison no one from the house of the accused had informed the complainant and it was only Ram Pat Ram (PW3) who had informed her. Similarly, this statement finds corroboration from the statement of Ravinder Kumar (PW2) who supported the testimony of the complainant in all minute details. He is the real brother of Sushma. He also stated that the accused started harassing his sister, because of her infertility. She had been complaining to him also about her harassment at his hands. Ram Pat Ram (PW3) had also informed them that the accused had murdered Sushma. The accused also did not inform the police about this untoward incident which happened with his wife. He never allowed the police to proceed with the investigation.

That apart, Ram Pat Ram, who is the common relative of both the parties and is the real uncle of the accused, had the courage to depose against the accused. He has stated that he was the mediator to the marriage. After a week of the marriage, the accused started harassing Sushma and he desired that he may be re-married with her younger sister because Sushma was not in a position to bear any child and this dispute continued consistently. He had been repeatedly putting pressure upon the complainant to get her daughter married with him, which resulted in continuous and consistent dispute between the accused and the deceased. Sushma had asked the accused to give her divorce on account of his activities. Sushma also made complaints several times that the accused had been harassing her because of not arranging her second sister''s marriage with him. He had also made the accused understand that his these efforts would be of no use. The demand of the accused to arrange marriage with the younger sister of Sushma is admitted by the accused during cross examination of Ram Pat Ram (PW3). The relevant portion of his statement is reproduced as under:

...It is correct that a dispute had taken place when Kailash Nath desired to have his marriage with the younger sister of Sushma....

Thus, the constant pressure landed the deceased into depression. Consequently, when she felt that the oppression made by the accused was unbearable, she committed suicide. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the maltreatment or hurling of abuses are generally not made in the public, therefore, non examination of the neighbourer does not give rise to an adverse inference. It is also well settled that the testimony of the close relatives cannot be discarded as these are the only relatives who come to know as to what is going on within the four walls of the house. In cases where married women commit suicide, no direct evidence could come forth. The domestic ladies continue bearing the maltreatment with a hope that good sense may prevail over their husbands, but when they loose all chances of any change or shine in the day, then they prefer to stay under the shelter of God while leaving the lap of their husbands. It is only in these extra ordinary circumstances created by the person in whose custody they are, and whose duty is to take care of and check their welfare, which compel her to take this extreme step. The courts would be justified in drawing inference against the accused particularly when they have no plausible explanation to say that as to how a live body of a woman was turned into corpus within no time. Had the deceased been suffering from any disease and died a natural death due to such disease, then on proof of such fact, the presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act could be said to be rebutted. Even otherwise, consistent testimony of three witnesses deposing about the maltreatment given by the accused, the presumption would be that the accused had created cruelty to such an extent that the deceased could not find any other way except to find place in the lap of God. Thus, the case stands fully established against the accused.

No other argument has been raised.

Resultantly, finding on merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.