AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment of the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, in Crl.A.No.35 of 2007, dated
03.10.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence
punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and also rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of I.P.C., in default of payment of total fine of Rs.1000/-, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, imposed against the revision
petitioner/accused by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jangoan in S.C.No.513 of 2006 dated 12.10.2006.
Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the revision petitioner/accused and one Nimmala Padma (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased)
took place 11 years prior to the incident and out of their wedlock, they blessed with three children. Thereafter, the revision petitioner addicted to bad
vices and developed illicit intimacy with another lady and since then, the revision petitioner/accused started harassing the deceased both mentally and
physically on trivial matters and when the deceased questioned and objected for his illegal intimacy with another lady, the revision petitioner/accused
used to beat her mercilessly. In the panchayat, the elders found fault with the revision petitioner and asked him to live amicably with the deceased, but
the revision petitioner/accused has not changed his attitude. On the night of 12.08.2006, the revision petitioner/accused beat the deceased
indiscriminately when she questioned his extra marital affair and then the deceased unable to bear the harassment in the hands of the revision
petitioner, decided to end her life and in furtherance of her decision, she committed suicide by hanging herself with her saree and died. On coming to
know the death of his daughter, P.W.1 lodged the complaint before the police, basing on which a case in Crime No.37 of 2006 was registered under
Section 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. and after completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the accused, which was taken
cognizance as P.R.C.No.51 of 2006 and on committal the same was numbered as S.C.No.513 of 2006. The accused was tried for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C.
The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 and P7 to prove the guilt of the accused. On behalf of the accused, no oral
evidence was adduced, but Ex.D1-relevant portion in the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was marked. On a perusal of the
entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306
of I.P.C. and sentenced him as stated supra.
In an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/accused, the learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, confirmed the conviction and sentence
imposed against the revision petitioner/accused. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/accused preferred this criminal revision.
Heard learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.
The point that arises for consideration is “Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the appellate
Court for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. are sustainable in law?â€
The law is well settled that the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below unless there is no legal evidence to
support the findings of the Courts below or the appreciation of evidence by the Courts below is perverse and it resulted in miscarriage of justice. So, it
has to be seen whether in the instant case the findings of the Courts below are supported by legal evidence and if so, whether the appreciation of
evidence by the Courts below is perverse.
P.Ws.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased and their evidence is to the effect that they performed the marriage of the deceased with the revision
petitioner 10 years prior to the death of the deceased and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with three children; that thereafter the revision
petitioner/accused developed illegal intimacy with a lady of Poosala Caste and since then he started beating and harassing their daughter; that in the
panchayat held before village elders, the revision petitioner was advised to mend his ways and not to harass their daughter, but there was no change in
the attitude of the revision petitioner. P.Ws.1 and 2 further deposed that the revision petitioner/accused killed their daughter by hanging her at his
house and on receipt of death intimation on phone from one of the villagers, they went there and noticed the dead body of their daughter hanging to the
pipe of tin roofed ceiling and that the revision petitioner/accused is responsible P.W.3, who is the son-in-law of P.Ws.1 and 2, deposed that the
revision petitioner/accused and the deceased led their marital life happily for some time and thereafter the revision petitioner developed illegal intimacy
with a Poosala caste lady, as a result of which there were disputes between them and as such the revision petitioner/accused used to harass and beat
her. He further stated that the revision petitioner/accused killed the deceased by way of hanging her and that he is responsible for the death of the
deceased.
P.W.4, who is a neighbour of the deceased and the revision petitioner, deposed that there were some minor domestic problems between the revision
petitioner and the deceased and in that connection, panchayats were held and he participated in those panchayats; that he advised the revision
petitioner and his wife to lead their happy marital life without any quarrel. He also deposed that the deceased committed suicide at the house of the
revision petitioner by hanging herself and he cannot say as to who is responsible to the suicidal death of the deceased.
P.W.5, who was cited as an eyewitness to the quarrels, did not support the case of the prosecution and she was treated as hostile to the case of the
prosecution. P.W.6, who is the husband of P.W.5 and a neighbour of the deceased and the revision petitioner, deposed that the revision petitioner and
the deceased were used to quarrel with each other and on two or three occasions he intervened and advised them not to quarrel; that on one day in
the evening, when such quarrel took place, he went there along with his wife and at that time, the accused asked them not to intervene and on the next
day he noticed the dead body of the deceased as hanging from the roof. He further deposed that the deceased died because of the disputes and
differences between her and her husband.
P.Ws.7 and 8, who are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, deposed that the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their
presence.
P.W.9 deposed that the revision petitioner used to harass his wife due to domestic problems and due to his consuming liquor. He further deposed that
on enquiries they came to know that on the date of incident, the revision petitioner beat his wife.
P.W.10 deposed that on his enquiry, the surrounding persons informed him about the quarrel in between the revision petitioner and the deceased
earlier to the date of the incident. He also deposed that the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the harassment in the hands of her husband.
P.W.11-Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, found no external injuries on the body of the deceased
except a noose mark injury above thyroid bone and protruding of the tongue. He opined that the cause of death was due to hanging and he issued
Ex.P5-P.M.E. report.
P.W.12, who is the panch witness for the Crime Details Form, deposed that in his presence the police prepared a Crime Details Form by incorporating
a rough sketch of the scene in it and that he attested the inquest panchanama as one of the witness.
P.W.13, who is the Investigating Officer, deposed that basing on the report lodged by P.W.1, he registered a case against the accused, visited the
scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchas and sent the dead body
to the hospital for autopsy and that after completion of investigation and collecting all the reports, he filed the charge sheet.
On a close scrutiny of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the question that falls for determination is as to whether the illicit intimacy of the
revision petitioner with another woman could be said to have subjected the wife to cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A of the IPC ?
It is apposite here therefore, to consider Section 498-A of the IPC, which reads as under :
498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty :--
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine, Explanation :-- For the purposes of this section ""cruelty"" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
(b) harassment of woman, where and harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand;
The expression ""cruelty"" has been defined for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC. It is in two parts. The first part envisages the wilful conduct
on the part of the husband or his relative towards the woman, which may likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical). The expression wilful conduct, therefore, requires to be understood in conjunction with the
other requirement, viz. the consequence of such a conduct on the wife. The second part contemplates the harassment of the woman, which
harassment shall be with a view to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of their failure to meet such demand.
In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment.
The Court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the words 'instigation' and goading and held as under:-
Thus, to constitute ""instigation"", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by ""goading"" or
urging forward"". The dictionary meaning of the word ""goad"" is ""a thing that stimulates someone into action : provoke to action or reaction"" (See :
Concise Oxford English Dictionary); ""to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts"" (See : Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary - 7th
Edition). Similarly, ""urge"" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a
particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to ""goad"" or ""urge forward"" the latter
with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.
The Apex Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra ((2009) 16 SCC 605 Supra) case, has reiterated the legal position laid down in its earlier three Judges Bench
judgment in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC page 3837 and held that where the accused by his acts or continued
course of conduct creates such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, an instigation may be
inferred. Their Lordships in the aforesaid case of Chitresh Kumar, summed up the legal position as under :-
In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that:
(i) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct which may even be a wilful silence until the
deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or wilful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more
quickly in a forward direction; and,
(ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above.
Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.
The Apex Court opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person suicidability pattern
is different from the other. Each person has his own idea of self-esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket
formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
In the instant case, P.Ws.1 to 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12 have categorically stated about the accused harassing and torturing the deceased and even P.W.5,
who was declared as hostile, also stated that there were disputes between the accused and his wife. The panchayat elders who participated in the
panchayat held between the revision petitioner/accused and his wife (deceased) due to their dispute have also asserted and corroborated with each
other with regard to the accused harassing and torturing the deceased both physically and mentally, apart from the accused having illegal intimacy with
a woman belonging to Poosala Caste. P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.6, have categorically stated that they have witnessed the accused harassing and torturing
his wife and their evidence is neither countered nor rebutted by the revision petitioner/accused. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly held that the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12 clearly established that the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the torture and harassment meted out
to her by the revision petitioner/accused.
That apart, the deceased committed suicide in the house of the revision petitioner/accused by hanging herself. There was no explanation from the
accused as to why the deceased committed suicide. Further, the P.Ws.1 to 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12 in one voice have categorically deposed that the accused
has harassed and tortured his wife both mentally and physically and that the deceased committed suicide unable to bear the torture and harassment
meted out to her and also due to the illegal intimacy of the accused with another woman. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that their
evidence is consistent and cogent and there is absolutely nothing on record to discredit their evidence.
On perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the appellate Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in confirming the
conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the revision petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of
I.P.C. There is no reason or justification to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. I find no merit in the criminal revision case and it is liable to
be dismissed.
The Criminal Revision Case is accordingly dismissed. Since the revision petitioner/accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled and he is
directed to surrender before the trial Court for serving the remaining sentence of imprisonment forthwith, otherwise the learned trial Judge shall take
appropriate steps for securing his presence.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.