Ramraj Singh vs State of M.P.

Mr. Justice T.K. Kaushal, J.—This judgment shall govern disposal of aforesaid both appeals arose out of common impugned judgment dated 28/11/2001 passed by Additional Session Judge, Amarpatan, District- Satna in ST. no. 140/1994 convicting the appellants u/s 306 of IPC for abatement of suicide committed by deceased Saroj Singh and sentenced them to 7 years R.I and with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default 6 months R.I to each. Deceased Saroj Singh was wife of appellant Ramraj Singh, married on 15/02/1989. Deceased died on 02/06/1994 by hanging herself after killing two children, aged 4 years and 10 months. Appellant Raghunandan Singh and appellant Leela Devi Singh are brother and sister-in-law of appellant Ramraj singh. Chandrabhan Singh (PW-1) and Anurudh Singh Hajari (PW-5) are brothers of the deceased. Neeta Singh, wife of Chandrabhan Singh (PW-6) is sister-in-law of the deceased.

Facts of the case according to charge sheet, in short, are that at the time of marriage deceased possessed degree of Master of Arts and was resident of Sagar. Appellant Ramraj Singh husband of deceased was only BA pass and was resident of village Chourhata and was posted as Clerk in irrigation department at village-Devlong, District- Shahdol. Appellant Ramraj Singh used to live alone at his place of posting and deceased live in village Chorhata along with co-appellants Jeth-Jethani. Husband and his family members were not happy and satisfied with the items given by brothers of the deceased in marriage. Deceased was constantly subjected to harassment and torture by her husband and his family members. At the time of marriage deceased was assured regarding her service. Deceased was subjected to harassment and torture by co-appellants by finding faults in herself and her daily house hold work and by misbehaving with her. In 5 years married life, deceased gave birth to one daughter and one son. On the date of incident, their age was 4 years and 10 months respectively. On 02/06/1994 in village Chorhata after killing two children, bolted herself in a room in matrimonial house, hung herself by neck through the roof. Raghunandan Singh and appellant Leela Devi Singh came and knocked the door and somehow managed to open the door and found her dead hanging herself from the roof leaving two children dead on the floor.

Neighbour Dharamraj Singh (PW-2) informed the incident to police-Amarpatan. Marg Ex.P-4 was registered. Naksha Panchayatnama of dead body Ex.P-6 of the deceased was prepared. Postmortem of deceased was conducted by Dr.P.K Shukla (PW-11).

Information of death of deceased was sent by the appellants to her brothers at Sagar by telegram. Telegram was received by brother after two days of the incident i.e on 4th June, 1994. Prior to, they could reach the village to see her dead body, funeral of the deceased was completed by the appellants.

On 25/06/1994, Police Amarpatan registered a case at crime no. 82/ 1994 u/s 304B IPC against the appellants. Police statements of brothers of deceased and other witnesses were recorded. Letters written by the deceased to her brothers were seized. For comparison of handwriting of the deceased on letters, college note book Ex.P-18 was also seized. These -were sent to handwriting expert for examination of handwriting of the deceased. Visra of deceased was also sent for chemical examination to FSL.

After completing investigation, Police Amarpatan, citing 25 witnesses submitted charge sheet against the appellants u/s 304B IPC in the court of concerned JMFC. Case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. Trial court framed charges u/s 306 and 304B of IPC on the appellants. Appellants abjured guilt. Defence of appellants in the trial court was that of false implication.

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, statements of Chandrabhan Singh, brother of deceased (PW-1), Dharamraj Singh, neighbour of deceased (PW-2), Phool Chand Mishra, Head Constable (PW-3), S.P. Chaturvedi, ASI (PW-4), Anurudh Singh Hajari, brother of deceased (PW-5), Neeta Singh, wife of Chandrabhan Singh (PW-6), Mukesh Jain (PW-7), R.P. Suryavanshi (PW-8), Mahendra Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-9), and Sukhilal Vishwakarma, Head Constable (PW-10) and Dr.P.K. Sharma (PW-11) were recorded. To substantiate defence of the appellants, statements of Yogendranath Tiwari (DW-1) and Rajendra Singh (DW-2) were recorded. Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial court acquitted the appellants of the charge u/s 304B of IPC. However, convicted them u/s 306 IPC and sentenced them as above.

These appeals, challenging the findings of conviction and sentence, have been preferred on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. Statements of prosecution witnesses are suffering from material contradictions and omissions. Prosecution failed to prove any ingredients of abatement. Trial court has disbelieved the witnesses in respect of demand of dowry. Conviction of appellants is bad in law. Sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence of appellants and opposed the appeals.

To bring home the charges under 306 IPC, prosecution must prove the fact of commission of suicide by a person and suicide was the result of abatement committed by the appellants/accused persons.

Abatement has been defined u/s 107 IPC which reads as below:-

Section 107 Abatement of a thing-A person abets the doing of a thing, who--

First.-- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Law of Evidence provides certain presumption regarding abatement of suicide committed by a married woman. Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as below:-

113 A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.- When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a women had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation

For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

According to Section 498 A of IPC cruelty means:-

Explanation

For the purpose 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; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such 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.

In view of the evidence of Ex.P-3 Postmortem report, Ex.P-6 Lash Panchnama of the deceased, Ex.P-24 F.S.L report of clothes and visra of the deceased, Ex.P-25 Spot Map, and statement of Dr. P.K. Sharma (PW-11), it remains no longer disputed that death of the deceased was of homicidal nature occurred within period of 7 years of the marriage in his matrimonial house. It further remains undisputed that at the time of the commission of suicide by the deceased, her husband (appellant Ramraj Singh) was not present in the house rather he had gone to his place of posting, which is about 60-70 kms away from the village.

Learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on Dwarika Prasad Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and submitted that instances of cruel treatment in the long past cannot be treated as abatement and further submitted that no evidence has been produced by prosecution to prove any act of cruelty whatsoever attributable to the appellants committed by them soon before the suicide or in the recent past of the suicide. In the present case it has to be appreciated whether deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellants prior to the incident or not.

On careful examination of evidence of Chandrabhan Singh, brother of deceased (PW-1), Anurudh Singh Hajari, brother of deceased (PW-5) and Neeta Singh (PW-6) wife of Chandrabhan Singh, it is revealed that deceased sent letter Ex.P-1 on 23/12/1991 narrating the instances of mis-behaviour and ill-treatment of the appellants in respect of her work and method of cooking and other house hold job. In Ex.P-1 there is mention that deceased might think for committing suicide also, but this letter has been written about 2 1/2 years prior to the incident.

Anurudh Singh Hajari (PW-5), brother of the deceased visited the matrimonial house of deceased 15-20 days prior to the incident. He had gone to take the deceased with him to visit to her parent''s house, but she was not permitted to go with him because as per religious perceptions that time was not be fitting to travel in that direction.

It has also come in evidence of Chandrabhan Singh, (PW-1), Anurudh Singh Hajari (PW-5) brothers of the deceased that information regarding death of deceased was received by telegram after two days of the incident. Anurudh Singh Hajari (PW-5) stated that he could not see dead body of his sister because appellants have performed the funeral prior to that. Then he reported the matter at police station Amarpatan.

Insofar as evidence of letters Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 are concerned, it can be understood that it indicates the facts, circumstances and mind set of the deceased on 23/12/1991 and on 02/12/1993 respectively. These letters show frustration of deceased regarding her life in the house of village and her helplessness in respect of not getting proper service. At the same time Ex.D-2 to D-14 letters written by either PW-1 or PW-6 to the appellants before or after aforesaid letters showing everything normal and fine are also on record. Trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence in respect of demands and held evidence to be not sufficient regarding demand of dowry from her soon before the death of the deceased.

According to Chandrabhan (PW-1) deceased did not visit her house for last about 1 1/2 -2 years from the date of death because appellants used to discourage such meetings. Anurudh Singh Hajari (PW-5) also visited the house of deceased 15-20 days back of her death, but nothing has been complained by the deceased to him to show whether she was living in adverse or hostile atmosphere.

On careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6, it is clear that there had been a considerable gap between the mind sets and educational standard of the deceased and her husband appellant Ramraj Singh. Deceased was MA pass and was forced by circumstances to live in the house of village, tolerating regular instructions and criticism of her Jeth and Jethani in respect of daily house hold work. Fact that her husband also does not take interest to keep her with him at his place of posting saying that quarter is small, was another cause of her frustration. Deceased was deprived of due response and status by the appellants as she was expecting in view of her educational and family back ground both. It is true that deceased succeeded to sustain such poor life style and treatment of appellants for a period of 5 years after marriage and in the meantime, she was blessed with two children also, but at last she ended her life in such manner.

For rebutting presumption of cruelty, defence and evidence of the appellants in the trial was that deceased was never subjected to any physical torture by them. At the most appellants can be held liable for not arranging service for her despite her educational qualifications. The deceased was not allowed to live with her husband at his place of posting. Such behaviour, attitude and response of the appellants are the acts of cruelty or not has to be decided.

The appellant in his statement of accused persons recorded u/s 313 of Criminal Procedure Code stated that his house was very small as he was living in rented private house. Whereas, Yogendra (DW-1) stated that appellant Ramraj Singh was living in a government quarter, it was one room quarter only, but any government quarter allotted to a government servant is never so small so that a husband and wife can not live together. It was a decision of the appellant to not to keep the deceased with him at the place of posting. According to DW-2 neighbour of matrimonial house, at the time of the incident appellant Raghunandan Singh and appellant Leela Devi Singh were watching T.V in his house. It was a shock to them also that deceased ended her life like that.

In view of the aforesaid it has been revealed that frustration of the deceased began from the date of marriage when a MA pass girl of Sagar University was sent in a village having no facility of good kitchen and toilet even. Constant instructions and criticism of Jeth and Jethani aggreviated the situation. Even after period of 4-5 years she could not get deserving service, was the breaking point. She did not find appropriate support from her husband to live with him at his place of posting along with two children. Disapproval of quality and style of deceased by Jeth and Jethani and non- appreciation of wish of the deceased by husband to live with her at the place of posting, were the acts of cruelty and harassment as per definition of Section 498 A IPC is the main question before this court to be decided. Not to have caring and supportive husband, brother in law and sister in law is a different thing, but subjecting constant harassment and cruelty in matrimonial house is a quite different thing.

For present case, necessary element of cruelty is causing physical or mental pain or suffering to any one by showing such conduct which may drive the lady in matrimonial house either to commit suicide or to cause injury or danger to her life, limb or health. No doubt in present unfortunate case after eliminating two children the deceased committed suicide. It is also true that unlikely of dowry deaths it is not necessary for abatement of suicide, that cruelty should have been committed soon before the suicide. But there should be a reasonable link between the act of suicide and act of cruelty committed by the accused. If requirement of "soon before" is not expected in case of abatement of suicide then at least a reasonable link between these two should always be there.

After happening of this henious and unfortunate incident, to remind each and every past incident or instance, caused inconvenience and trouble to the deceased, for deciding that to be an act of cruelty, is neither a correct preposition of fact nor the intention of the law. Letters Ex.P-1 dated 23/12/ 1991 and Ex.P-2 dated 2/12/1993, would not be sufficient evidence for presuming the cruelty on the part of the appellants, resulted in suicide of the deceased on 2/06/1994. Trial court acquitted the appellants of the charge u/s 304B of IPC, however, convicted them observing continuity of torturous act of the appellants, right from the date of marriage of deceased till the date of suicide.

It is true that cruelty will be presumptive for abatement of suicide in such case, but there should a link and nexus between the act of cruelty and suicide. Law does not give any presumption for continuity of cruelty. It requires Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 written 2 1/2 years and 6 months prior to the incident, continuity of cruelty cannot be presumed.

Fact that information of death of the deceased was sent by the appellants to brothers of the deceased by telegram, is a circumstance showing lack of sincerity of appellants towards the relationship. Fact that funeral was performed without waiting for arrival of brothers of deceased is indicative of guilty mind of appellants, but in view of the fact that brother PW-5 reached the village after two days of the death of deceased, such circumstance alone cannot take a place of proof of act of cruelty.

In my considered opinion, trial court has erred to presume the continuity of acts of cruelty for driving the deceased for commission of suicide. Not only soon before the incident, but in recent past also no act of cruelty has been proved by the evidence of prosecution by the appellants towards the deceased, hence presumption u/s 113A of Evidence Act is not attracted. Evidence is not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of cruelty thereby abatement of suicide. Appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. Conviction of appellants u/s 306 IPC is not proper and deserves to be set aside. As discussed above, conviction and sentence of the appellants u/s 306 IPC is not sustainable and hereby set aside.

Appeals are allowed and appellants are acquitted of the charge.