Sarju Das vs U.T.Chandigarh

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

The complainant being dissatisfied with the acquittal of respondent/accused for an offence under Section 306 IPC has filed this revision petition.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sarju''s daughter Kalawati was appearing in 10+2 examination. On the recommendation of Bishambar Saini, PW.9, accused Salig Ram was giving her tution though he is only a Peon. Kalawati and accused developed intimacy. When they were seen freely roaming about in the market together, even Bishambar Saini objected. Salig Ram also felt dissatisfied. On the advice of Bishambar Saini, the complainant discontinued the tution of his daughter through the accused. On 7.7.1995 when the complainant went on duty, as he is gardener by profession, he received a message that his daughter has strangulated herself by hanging. He immediately rushed to his house. Before that on being informed Inspector Harvel Singh, SHO PS Sector 31, Chandigarh reached the complainant''s house. He found the deceased hanging. He prepared the site plan. Constable Mohinder Singh prepared the photographs. Inquest proceedings were held. He also seized one diary and one suicidal note with a ball pen in the room of the deceased. Body was sent to P.G.I. for postmortem. Dr. J.K. Kalra conducted the autopsy. He found ligature mark on her neck. The cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging.

As no F.I.R. was registered at the police station, the complainant gave a legal notice to S.H.O. PS Sector 31, Chandigarh wherein he mentioned that Salig Ram, accused became intimate with his daughter as he was living in their neighbourhood. He abducted and raped his daughter few days back and thereafter on 7.7.1995 his daughter died in mysterious circumstances leaving a suicidal note in her own handwriting. In the suicidal note she has mentioned that accused Salig Ram destroyed her life, therefore she has committed suicide. Though the matter was reported to the Police but F.I.R. was not registered. In the notice S.H.O. was called upon to transfer investigation of this case to some other police officer and to record the FIR against Salig Ram for abetting Kalawati to commit suicide and to arrest him. This notice was served on 5.8.1995.

Thereafter, statements of complainant Sarju Ram and his wife Jamuna were recorded. In this statement the complainant stated that for the last 11/2 years Salig Ram was giving tution to his daughter. He was living in their neighbourhood. But for the last seven weeks he has left that accommodation and has started living somewhere else. Kalawati was going to the house of the accused for taking tution. He never suspected any illicit relations between the two. But once he went on cycle to Mansa Devi Temple along with his both the daughters. Accused was also there on his Moped. While coming back on the suggestion of the accused he agreed that accused will leave his both the daughters on his Moped at his house. Complainant reached his house on his cycle. After about two hours his both the daughters reached their house along with the accused. On being asked, accused gave the explanation that he took Kalawati and her younger sister Rama Bati to Sector 17 to show his office to them. Later on, on suspicion when he asked Ram Wati the cause of delay, she told him that in Sector 17, Salig Ram and Kalawati went inside a room leaving her outside, they bolted the room from inside and came out after some time. Two boys were also present there, but Salig Ram threatened her not to disclose this fact to her parents. Thereby the complainant suspected that his daughter Kalawati is having illicit relations with the accused. Three/four days thereafter even Bishambar Saini advised him to discontinue Kalawati''s tution from Salig Ram as they are adopting wrong ways and as she is often seen on his Moped in the market. Thereafter her tution was discontinued. Even then the accused and Kalawati used to meet secretly. In the meantime, Salig Ram married another woman. On 3.7.1995 when he was going to his office he saw accused and Kalawati standing near Shiv Temple, talking to each other. As soon as they saw him Kalawati went inside the temple and Salig Ram accused slipped away. Since that day Kalawati was in a disturbed mental frame. On 7.7.1995 she committed suicide by hanging herself. The complainant suspected that Salig Ram had promised Kalawati to marry and thereby he developed illicit relations with her and later on he married another woman and thus spoiled his daughter''s life. On this statement, the F.I.R. was registered under Section 306 IPC on 1.11.1995.

During investigation photocopies of answer sheets of Kalawati of matriculation examination of the year 1995 from the C.B.S.E. Board were obtained vide seizure memo Ex.PA/3. She was studying in a school at Ram Darbar. Copy of her admission entry was also obtained therefrom. Photocopies of the answer sheets and of the suicidal note of the deceased were sent to handwriting expert Shri S.K. Saksena, Deputy Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Government of India, Shimla, who on comparison found (Ex.PW.14/B) that both the handwritings were of one and the same person. After completing investigation, chargesheet was filed.

Accused denied the guilt.

During trial prosecution examined 15 witnesses but the material witnesses with regard to the alleged offence were Sarju Ram, PW.3, Jamuna Devi, PW.4, Dr. J.K. Kalra, P.W.5, Bishambar Saini, PW.9 and S.K. Saksena PW.14.

On a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the trial court came to the conclusion that offence under section 306 IPC is not proved. Learned trial court has considered the contents of the suicidal note Ex.PW.14/E as well. He commented that suicidal note is bereft of the details as to how and in what manner Salig Ram had ruined her life. It is also not mentioned therein as to how accused has defrauded her. In the trial Court''s opinion even the father never suspected any foul play in her death and therefore on 7.7.1995 he filed an application before S.D.M. that he will not like the dead body of Kalawati being subjected to postmortem examination. The trial Court also commented that subsequently complainant gave legal notice to SHO of P.S. Sector 31, Chandigarh mentioning that accused developed closeness with the deceased. He abducted her, raped her a few days ago. In his statement recorded during investigation he gave the details of his suspicion that accused was having illicit relations with his daughter, accused promised to marry her but later on betrayed her; therefore, she committed suicide. The trial court commented that there is no material on the file to show that this suspicion of the complainant was correct. There was no circumstance/evidence to prove that at any point of time, accused instigated/aided/abetted the deceased to commit suicide as per the definition of Section 107 IPC. The trial Court also took note of the fact that FIR was lodged after 4 months of the date of occurrence i.e. 7.7.1995 which is not at all explained. He also took note that during investigation diary seized from the room of the deceased was not produced. Bishamber Saini, PW.9, did not support the prosecution. In the trial court''s opinion, in all probability it appears that suicide was committed by the teenaged Kalawati out of sheer frustration or supersensitiveness. Finding no material to hold the accused guilty under Section 306 IPC, he was acquitted.

Petitioner''s learned counsel criticised the trial Court''s judgment and argued that as under the Code of Criminal Procedure no legal right is given to the complainant to file appeal, he was constrained to file this revision petition. He also pointed out that when bail order was passed which is reproduced in the grounds of revision, the trial court commented on the evidence collected during investigation in a different vein but subsequently when this very evidence was considered at the stage of trial, the trial Court held different opinion and gave the benefit to accused of all the suspected lacunas in the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel expressed his helplessness for nonproduction of the diary, nonexamination of those boys who saw the deceased and the accused going inside the room in Sector 17. If those boys would have been examined and the diary would have been produced they would have adduced other evidence also to corroborate the testimony of the complainant; but the prosecution has deliberately withheld that diary and has failed to examine those boys. Harvel Singh, Investigating Officer, has admitted on oath that he seized diary from the room of the deceased, but later on it was not produced in the court.

Learned counsel also commented that suicidal note left by the deceased was duly proved by the statement of handwriting expert who testified that answer sheets written by the deceased and the suicidal note are written by one and the same person. Even postmortem examination was not conducted properly. If her private parts would have been examined the report could have been obtained about the allegation of rape. He also submitted that complainant never gave any application before the S.D.M. that he does not want postmortem examination of his deceased daughter. On all these accounts, complainant''s learned counsel submitted that trial court has fallen into an error in not appreciating/weighing the evidence properly and resultantly acquitting the accused. In the alternative, he also argued that some compensation ought to have been awarded to the complainant for the death of his daughter.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent/accused contended that the evidence produced by the prosecution was laconic. No clinching evidence was adduced against the accused to hold him guilty for the offence under Section 306 IPC. Even though the suicidal note left by the deceased was proved by the prosecution it was rightly not used against the accused to hold him guilty for an offence under section 306 IPC, as the suicidal note is very vague. There is no suggestion/explanation as to how the accused committed fraud with the deceased or how he ruined/destroyed her life. Learned counsel supporting the impugned judgment argued that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has correctly acquitted the accused. He also submitted that there is no ground to award compensation to the complainant for the death of his daughter because accused cannot be made liable to pay any compensation for the death of Kalawati.

After hearing the rival contentions, in my considered view, there is no ground to hold the accused guilty of the offence under section 306 IPC or to make him liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

From the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial it is evident that date of birth of the deceased was 3.4.1977 as per her school record. She died on 7.7.1995. Thus it is apparent that on the date of death she was major. Admittedly accused was giving tution to her at his own residence. On the date of occurrence i.e. 7.7.1995 complainant expressed that he does not suspect any foul play in her death but subsequently he gave notice to Investigating Officer which was received by him on 5.8.1995. After commenting that accused abducted his daughter and raped her few days back and thereby as her life was spoiled by the accused, he abetted her in committing suicide. In his further statement he disclosed many factors that accused was teaching his daughter for the last 11/2 years. They were freely moving in the market, even the complainant allowed him to bring back his both the daughters from the Temple of Mansa Devi to their house; when they reached home late then on enquiry his younger daughter told him that accused and deceased went inside the room in Sector 17, they bolted the room from inside and came out after some time. Two more boys were around that place. Neither the younger daughter of the complainant nor those boys were examined during trial. Even the diary which was seized from the place of occurrence was not produced during trial. If this evidence is not produced by the respondent in the trial, the accused cannot be blamed for that, conversely he is entitled to take the benefit of these lacunas.

It is also apparent from the trial court''s judgment that complainant never asked his daughter as to how and to what extent she has developed illicit relations with the accused. Even Bishamber Saini, PW.9, did not support the complainant when he was examined in court.

So far as the suicidal note is concerned, lower court has reproduced it in the judgment. In this suicidal note, the deceased has simply mentioned that accused has ruined her life, therefore, she has committed suicide as she has no other way out. She has also mentioned that accused has defrauded her but there is a big question mark, as to how this all has been done by the accused to her. She was not an innocent child. She was a major girl studying in 10+2. Even if from the suicidal note it can be deduced that accused developed illicit relations with the deceased or even went to the extent of making promise to marry her but finally he married another woman and ceased to reside in the neighbourhood of the complainant, even these circumstances would not prove the charge under Section 306 IPC. Further, even these facts are not proved beyond doubt. No accused can be convicted on mere suspicion. Prosecution is required to prove its case against the accused beyond a shadow of doubt.

Hence, in my considered view, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. There is no reason whatsoever to make the accused liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Once he is acquitted of the charge, he is exonerated of the criminal liability.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the revision petition, it is dismissed.