Shiv Lal vs State of Haryana

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Three appellants Shiv Lal, his father Tulla Ram and his mother Shrimati Dhan Kaur were convicted under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional judge, Narnual, vide his order dated 14th January, 1982, and while Shiv Lal was sentenced to ten year''s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default, two years rigorous imprisonment the other two appellants were each sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default, one year''s rigorous imprisonment. Deep Chand brother of Shiv Lal another coaccused of the appellants, was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, as the prosecution case against him was found to be doubtful.

Om Kala, the deceased in the case who burnt herself to death was the legally wedded wife of Shiv Lal Appellant. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant did not treat her well. Many time she complained to her parents about this but they somehow advised and persuaded her to stay on with the appellants. The eldest sister of Om Kala was also married in the same village. On 2nd April, 1981, Om Kala (Since deceased) complained to her eldest sister Phullan Devi about the illtreatment meted out to her by the appellants. Chhotu Ram PW father of Om Kala (since deceased), was called by the inlaws of Phulan Devi aforesaid. When Chhotu Ram PW visited his daughter Om Kala, she almost broke down and told her father about the beating given to her by the appellants. She requested her father to take her along but Chhotu Ram insisted that he would convene a panchayat of the village. It is alleged that even Chhotu Ram was manhandled by the appellants.

While Chhotu Ram PW had gone to the sarpanch of the village he learnt that Om Kala had burnt herself. Duli Chand PW another soninlaw of Chhotu Ram, informed him about the same and took him to his own well. The police came to the village on the same night since Shiv Lal appellant had himself lodged a report with the police at 10 p.m. Assistant SubInspector jagdish Chander PW. 11 prepared inquest report Exhibit PA. The deadbody of Om Kala was taken to Mohindergarh hospital where autopsy was performed on it by Dr. R.S. Chauhan PW. 1 on 4th April, 1981. According to the doctor, the death was due to extensive burns of different parts of the body. The police did not take any action and the body of the deceased was cremated. However, Chhotu Ram PW not satisfied with the conduct of the local police, filed an application to the Superintendent of Police and sent its copies to different dignitaries. Ultimately, a case was registered at Police Station, Kanina, on 16th June, 1981 on the basis of formal First Information Report Exhibit PD/1. The three appellants were arrested by Kanhiya Lal Station House Officer PW 13 on 5th July, 1981 : They were challaned, tried and convicted as aforesaid.

When examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure to enable them to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, the appellants put up the plea of denial and stated that since Om Kala deceased had kept her ornaments with her parents and the ornaments included those given by the appellants in the marriage there was some quarrel about the same between the father of the deceased and the appellants and that it was for this reason that they had been falsely implicated. DW. 1 Ram Singh appeared in the defence of the appellants stating that the ornaments were lying with the parents of Om Kala deceased.

The prosecution, in order to establish its case examined the following witnesses. PW. 1 Dr R.S. Chauhan, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Om Kala. PW. Prehlad Sharma Draftsman prepared site plan Ex. PC. PW. 3, Chhotu Ram is the father of the decease and the first informant in the case. PW. 4, is Ishwar Singh brother of the deceased. He deposed about the strained relations between the appellants and the deceased. P.W. 5 Om Parkash is the sister''s son of the deceased. He deposed about the unpleasant incident of 2nd April, 1981, PW. 6 Duli Chand is the sister''s husband of the deceased. His evidence is to the same effect as that of Om Parkash PW. 5. PW. 7 Phullan Devi sister of the deceased and PW. 8 Smt. Sarti mother of deceased were tendered for cross examination. PW. 10 Nitya nand Head Constable proved the earlier report Exhibit PE lodged by Shiv Lal appellants. P.W. 11, Jagdish Chander Assistant SubInspector investigated the earlier report, Exhibit PE and got autopsy conducted on the deadbody of Om Kala. PW. 12 Ram Kishan Head Constable only deposed about the arrest of Deep Chand accused (since acquitted). PW. 13, Kanhiya Lal SubInspector mainly investigated the case. PW. 14, Baljit Singh partly investigated the case and made report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. Harbans Singh, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants, had very strenuously contended that the version contained in first information report Exhibit PD/1 is an afterthought inasmuchas it came into existence after more than two month. According to him Chhotu Ram first informant was admittedly present on the morning of the incident and was interrogated by the police but he did not make any such allegations. Accordingly to the learned counsel, it was only the dispute about the ornaments that brought into existence the allegations as contained in the first information report lodged by Chhotu Ram. I find considerable force in this contention. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that even if the allegations of prosecution are taken at their face value no case under section 306, of the Indian Penal Code is made out. To support this argument he pressed in to service a Division Bench authority of this court, viz. Raj Kumar v. The State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 158SB of 1980 decided on 28th October, 1982 reported in 1983(1) C.L.R. 660. In this elaborately written judgment their Lordships were pleased to hold that to bring a case within the mischief of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code there should be either instigation by a person charged with the offence or he should have been engaged with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for the commission of that offence or he should have intentionally aided it by any act or illegal omission. Now scruitinising the evidence on the touch stone of the ratio of above Division Bench authority it has to be held in the present appeal that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence that the appellants at the time of the commission of suicide by Om Kala deceased in any way instigated or abetted her to commit the suicide. There is no evidence even to the effect that they were present at the time Om Kala committed suicide. All that has been brought out in evidence is that a day earlier these appellants misbehaved with Om Kala. I agree with learned counsel for appellants that the ratio of Raj Kumar''s case is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, I accept the appeal, acquit the appellants of the charge against them and setaside their conviction and sentence.