Rabiswar Marandi And Others vs State Of Jharkhand

1

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

By Court 1. The accused persons were put on trial for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and for alternative charge under Sections 109/34 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were acquitted for the charge under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted under Sections 306,109/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is under challenge in the instant criminal appeal.

As per the written report lodged by the brother of the deceased-Manodi Murmu she was married to appellant no.1 in 2002. She was not blessed with any child. On 11.12.2010, in the morning, at 10 O’ Clock, he received information that his sister had been killed by her husband and in-laws. Appellant No.3 informed that his sister was in a critical condition. On this information, he along with his family members went to see his sister and saw that she had been killed. It is alleged in the FIR that one month before the incidence while she was coming to her natal home, there had been quarrel between the husband-appellant no.1 and deceased. There used to be quarrel of the in-laws with the deceased.

On the basis of written report, Jamtara, Nala (Bindapathar) P.S. Case No.113/10 was registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and one Mantu Marandi.

Police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet against all these appellants, who were put on trial for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and in alternative charge under Sections 109/34 and 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed.

Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of prosecution and the relevant document including post-mortem report, inquest report, have been induced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1–6.

The judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that out of nine material witnesses, P.W.1, P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. There is no eye witness to the act of abetment and the prosecution case rests on the testimony of P.W. 3-mother, P.W.4-father and P.W.7 brother of the deceased.

The main argument on behalf of appellants is that in order to constitute the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there should be some positive evidence regarding cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim and the said harassment should be of severity leaving no option available to the victim, except the terminal act of suicide. Reliance is placed on Mariano Anto Bruno & Anothr Versus The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387 wherein it has been held as under:-

“42. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide.”

By referring to the above position of law, it is argued that present case is completely bereft of any evidence regarding abetment of suicide. Informant has not stated in the F.I.R. that at any point of time, the appellants had assaulted the deceased.

In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, it is necessary that the accused must have provoked, insulted or induced the deceased to commit suicide and that too such an inducement should have been made with mensrea. The person accused of committing the commission of offence must have played an active role. It is a mental process of instigating a person for taking the self-destructive plunge.

In the present case, the deceased was married eight years before the incidence took place and it has come in the FIR that she was childless. It is not in dispute that death was suicidal in nature as proved by the post-mortem examination report. Autopsy surgeon has opined that death was due to asphyxia caused by hanging.

Informant of the case PW-7, in para-2 states that the deceased was initially kept well, but as she could not bear child, she was harassed by the appellants. She used to be assaulted and had been driven out from a matrimonial home. Two to three times, Tekram Marandi and Ravishar Marandi had come to take his sister with them. About five days before the incidence, on the intervention and mediation by the Panchayat, she had been sent to her matrimonial home. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the quarrel started after three years of the marriage, when she could not beget any child, and this continued for about 5 to 6 years.

P.W.-6 was declared hostile, but has deposed in para-3, that parents of Appellant no.1 were living separately from him.

P.W.-5 has also been declared hostile but has deposed that, deceased was having normal relationship with her husband. In para-3, he has deposed that father of the deceased were doing traditional treatment for her infertility. Deceased used to keep quiet, sad and withdrawn.

P.W.-4 is the mother of the deceased and she has deposed that her daughter was childless and therefore, she was being harassed by the husband and in-laws, who is used to say that they will arrange second marriage of her husband.

On combined reading of the testimony of the witnesses, the picture that can be conjured is that infertility of the deceased was unfortunately the cause for the melancholy of the deceased. Her close family relatives have deposed that initially there was happy conjugal life without any complaint. Trouble arose after the deceased failed to beget child. It is alleged that she was harassed by the appellants for her infertile status and was also assaulted for it. This part of allegation is without any corroborating evidence. Prosecution is absolutely silent about the date, time or place when she was assaulted. There is no evidence that any complaint was lodged before any authority with regard to such harassment. It is said that a panchayat had been held, but there is no evidence regarding it. In order to constitute an offence of abetment to commit suicide, there should be some positive evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the accused had in any way instigated the suicidal act. Here is a case where the marital relationship continued for more than eight years, without any complaint. There is no evidence to draw an inference that appellants were in any way responsible in the suicidal step taken by the deceased. It has come in evidence that deceased was in a state of gloom and used to be withdrawn for her inability to bear child. Logically, such a guilt was unwarranted. But in any case, the appellants were not responsible for the tragic step taken by the deceased.

In the absence of any evidence of abetment, charge under Sections 306/34 IPC fails, and the conviction is accordingly, set aside. It is baffling why the charge had been framed under Section 109 of the IPC, when a specific charge had been framed under Section 306 IPC. To cap it all, it is even more intriguing as to why conviction was awarded under both these Sections. The judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. Sureties are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond.

Appeal is allowed.