Ram Kumar vs State of M.P.

R.S. Garg, J.—The appellant has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sagar by judgment delivered on 15.1.1992 in Sessions Trial No. 333/91 u/s 306, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

The accused preferred the appeal from jail and Mr. S.L. Kochar, learned Counsel appeared for the accused but on the date of hearing as Mr. Kochar was not available, Mr. S. Saxena was appointed as a Counsel for defence. He was given sufficient opportunity to prepare the case. Mr. Saxena for the accused and Mr. Manoj Naidu, learned Counsel for the State are heard.

The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.8.91 accused lodged a report on strength of which an inquest was made, the information was recorded under Ex. PI. According to the report, the accused had stated that a day before that is on 21.8.91 Jagat Singh brother of the deceased came to the house of the accused to take his sister to her parents'' house, but the accused did not permit the wife to go to her parents'' house, on which she intimidated the accused that if she was not sent with the brother she may commit suicide. Next day when the deceased did not reach the field with the foods, a search was made and later on the dead-body of the deceased namely Radhabai and daughter of the accused namely Haribai aged about two years were found in the village well. After receiving the information, the police proceeded with the investigation recorded the statements on 23.8.91, though the same were not fi led before the Court. The dead-body was sent for post-mortem. The doctor opined that death was a result of drowning. On 31.8.91 further statements were recorded under the directions of the C.S.P and later on the challan was filed. The accused abjured his guilt and was therefore put to trial. The Trial Court was pleased to frame the charges u/s 302 and in the alternative u/s 306 and in the alternative u/s 304B, IPC. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused committed the offence punishable u/s 302, IPC and also failed to prove that he could be convicted u/s 304B, IPC. The trial Judge also held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was making a demand of dowry, he was treating the deceased with cruelty or he refused permission to his wife to go to her parents'' place a day before her death, in furtherance of any intention to demand dowry, it however held that the accused abeted the offence therefore he could be convicted u/s 306, IPC.

Mr. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence on record does not justify the conviction of the accused u/s 306, IPC. According to him, the evidence on record merely shows that after the accused after he refused permission to his wife on which the wife being emotionally weak committed suicide but the refusal would not amount to abatement of the offence punishable u/s 306, IPC. On the other hand Mr. Naidu supported the conviction.

From the statement of PW 4 Jagat Singh, brother of the deceased who came to his sister''s house it only appears that he had gone to the sister''s house and asked her to come to the parents'' house but the accused did not permit his wife to go to her parents'' house. He does not say anything further about any incident which took place on 21.8.91. Though in para 2 of his statement, he has stated that the accused was treating the deceased with cruelty but the learned Court below has disbelieved this part of his statement. In the cross-examination, he has stated that his elder sister was also married in the same village but he did riot inform about the incident to his elder sister. He also� admits that after the marriage the accused did not fight with the deceased. According to him, the accused only asked the deceased not to go to her parents'' house.

PW 5, Bainibai merely states that the deceased was treated with cruelty and was making complaint to the witness. She was forced to admit that her case diary statements do not contain these details. The ommission would certainly adversely affect the reliability of the witness. On the first available occasion she did not inform the police that the accused was treating the deceased with cruelty. She has further stated that Jagat Singh informed her that on 21.8.91 when he had gone to the house of the accused, Jagat Singh was abused and was turned out of the house. Unfortunately she is not supported by Jagat Singh PW 4 on this material aspect of the matter. From the statement of Bainibai PW 5, it cannot be held that the accused was-treating the deceased with cruelty or ever compelled her to commit suicide or abeted the suicide. PW 6, Rama is father of the deceased. In para 3 of his statement, he has clearly stated that since after the marriage the accused did not treat the deceased with cruelty. From his statement it cannot be held that the accused ever treated the deceased with cruelty or was making any demand of dowry. PW 7, Rajmadi Sharma the Investigation Officer has clearly admitted that not even a single witness was available to him who could say that the deceased was treated with cruelty under the hands of the accused or the accused ever fought with the deceased. He admits that certain statements were recorded by him on 28.8.91 but the same were not filed before the Court. He also admits that second set of the statements were recorded on 31.8.91 under the directions of the Superintendent of Police.

The evidence available on record only shows that on 21.8.91, Jagat Singh had gone to the house of the accused, asked his sister (wife of the accused) to come to her parents'' house, the accused refused the permission on which, even if the inculpatory statement made by the accused is read, the accused refused the permission on which the deceased intimidated the accused that if the permission is not granted, she would commit suicide. While reading the statement made by the accused it is to be read in whole. The inculpatory statement is in admissible by the exculpatory statement is certainly admissible. Even assuming that Ex. PI is admissible in evidence in its entirety and can be read as a whole it would show that according to the accused the wife was generally making remark that she would jump in the well. If the threat given by the wife on 21.8.91 was considered to be an ordinary threat which the wife was generally extending to the husband it cannot be held that the accused abeted the offence.

The relationship between the wife and the husband is based on love, affection, understanding and reposition of confidence in each other. If the wife being emotionally very weak and sensitive, felt badly insulted or humiliated as the husband did not grant permission to her it could not be held that the accused abeted the offence. It would be dangerous to come to the conclusion that the husband''s refusal to the wife to go to her parents'' house would amount to cruelty or would come in the mischief of abetment for commission of the suicide. It may be improper on the part of the accused to refuse permission to the wife but it would not be a penal offence.

The evidence on record does not meet the requirement of law which can fasten liability on the head of the accused. The Court below was unjustified in convicting the accused u/s 306, IPC.

The appeal deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The accused is in jail, he be immediately released.

The Registry is directed to make the payment of fees to the learned Counsel who was appointed by the Court to defend the accused.