Sohan Raj Sharma vs State of Haryana

T.P.S. Mann, J.—The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 02/04.11.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which he was convicted u/s 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years.

Rajiv Lochan Jain was a resident of House No. 327, Sector 19, Faridabad, whereas Sohan Raj Sharma appellant was living in his neighborhood in House No. 332. On 06.05,1991 at about 11.00 a.m. Rajiv Lochan Jain was standing at the gate of his house. He also went there and saw that Jyoti, Vicki and Gudiya, wife, son and daughter respectively, of Sohan Raj Sharma were vomiting. Jyoti drew the attention of Rajiv Lochan Jain by pointing towards her pillow. He found a letter lying there. Without wasting any further time, he brought his car from his house and removed Jyoti, Vicki and Gudiya to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad in his car. An information was thereafter conveyed by the hospital authorities regarding admission of the aforementioned three persons as poison cases. However, before the police could reach the hospital, Jyoti, Vicki and Gudiya died. AS1 Rohtash Singh came across Rajiv Lochan Jain in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PL, wherein Rajiv Lochan Jain stated that Jyoti had written in the letter that the appellant used to torture her for six in many different ways and having tired of the same, she administered poison to her children and thereafter consumed poison herself. It was the appellant who compelled Jyoti to consume poison. On the basis of the aforementioned statement of Rajiv Lochan Jain, an endorsement Ex. PL/1 was made by the Police Officer and consequently FIR Ex. PL/2 was recorded in Police Station Old Faridabad, Faridabad on the same day.

The aforementioned letter Ex. PX was also handed over by Rajiv Lochan Jain, which was taken into possession by the police vide memo Ex. PM. The letter consisted of eight pages. During the investigation of the case, the police collected medical evidence regarding the death of the three deceased on account of consumption of poison and other oral evidence of the witnesses regarding circumstances connected with the occurrence. Report Ex. PX/1 of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the finding of the poison in viscera of the three deceased and another report Ex. PX/1 of Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the comparison of the handwriting of the letter Ex. PX were tendered into evidence.

The prosecution had examined Dr. Neel Kanth Sharma as PWI, who deposed about the post-mortem examinations conducted by him on the dead bodies of the three deceased. After perusal of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, he gave opinion that the cause of death of all the three deceased was the consumption of organo phosphorus pesticide. Sohan Lal, Draftsman PW2 proved scaled site plan Ex. PD prepared by him. HC Rohtash Singh PW3 stated that photographs of the family of the accused were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PE. He also proved recovery memo Ex. PF regarding the blood samples and gastric samples besides recovery memo Ex. PG in respect of marriage certificate, photo and one letter Ex. P2. Rajiv Lochan Jain appeared as PW4 but he did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. Smt. Shashi Dutt PW5 testified to the effect that on 06.05.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. she came but of her house on hearing the noise of some children. She saw the children of the accused crying. She noticed some smell coming from the mouth of the two children. Many persons gathered there, including Mr. Jain and thereafter the children and Jyoti were removed to B.K. Hospital, Faridabad. Keshav Parshad PW6 was examined by the prosecution so as to prove that in the morning of the day of the incident, the accused left the house with an attachi (suit-case) in his hand for his village and at that time he was annoyed. Further that on his coaxing and intervention, the accused left his attachi with him and went to his office in Delhi. He was supposed to depose about the consumption of poison by Jyoti due to constant harassment given by the accused but on all these points he did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. John J. Lall, brother of Jyoti deceased, was examined as PW7. He deposed that Jyoti, who had changed her name after marriage, was working as a staff nurse at Kings way Camp in T.B. Hospital prior to her marriage. She married the accused against the wishes of her family. She used to correspond with him even after marriage. One such letter Ex. P2 was received by him, which he produced before the police. His deceased sister gave birth to twins, one son Vicki and one daughter Gudiya @ Poonam. Till 1988, his sister and brother-in-law had normal relations. In 1989, when he came to Faridabad to see them, he found that his sister was very sad. However, he did not know if his sister had any difference with her husband. Dr. PS. Dalai PW8 had medico-legally examined Guidya on 06.05.1991 at 11.40 a.m. and found it to be a case of suspected poison. He, therefore, sent a Ruqa to the police. HC Parkash Chiwd PW9 stated that he recorded formal FIR Ex. PL/2. ASI Rohtash Singh PW10 was the Investigating Officer of the case and made a statement regarding the various steps taken by him while conducting the investigation. Bhagwan Dass PW11, who was a Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Muzaffarnagar proved document Ex. P3 issued by his department in March 1983.

After tendering into evidence the reports of the experts, the prosecution closed its evidence. The accused was thereafter examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the correctness of the prosecution allegations and stated that he had never maltreated or harassed Jyoti nor did anything to cause her to commit suicide and to poison the two innocent children. His relevant reply to question No. 14 in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. reads as under :-

I never married Jyoti officially since 1 am a kattar Brahman and she was a Christian and since the parents and the brother of deceased wanted me to convert to Christianity, to which, I refused. Jyoti was a very hot tampered, a case of psycho and a lesbian and whenever she was confronted, she would come enrage and threatened me. One Km. Anita d/o Sh. J.S. Parmar belonging to Bombay came to reside with us at Faridabad since Mr. Parmar is a very close friend of mine. Jyoti tried to develop intimacy of lesbian towards her and when Anita complained to me, I scolded her and I only confronted her and told her that in case she does not improve herself, I would leave for my native place. Otherwise, I never maltreated her nor harassed her nor did anything to cause her to commit suicide and to poison two innocent children.

In defence the accused examined one Anita Parmar as DWI. Said Anita Parmar deposed with respect to the behavior of deceased Jyoti during her stay along with the accused and their two children in her house as guests of his father in the month of March/April 11991. According to her, Jyoti was lesbian and she even tried to put her hand on her face after pulling her towards her side when they slept one day together on the floor as they did not have sufficient space in her flat at Bombay. Said Jyoti even pressed her breast with her hand besides rubbing her leg with her leg.

I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the evidence led by them.

The present case hinges on letter Ex. PX. The same was picked up by Rajiv Lochan Jain when he was attracted to the house of the deceased on noticing a number of ladies having gathered there. The said letter was perused by him from which he came to know the reason as to why Jyoti first administered poison to her two minor children and thereafter consumed the poison herself. He immediately brought his car from his house and removed Jyoti and her two children in the same to the hospital. Though as PW4 Rajiv Lochan Jain stated that after the treatment of the victims was started by the doctors he returned home and later on came to know that all three of them had died, but he could not deny his signatures on statement Ex. PL which the prosecution claimed to have been made by him before ASI Rohtash Singh PW 10 in the hospital. His explanation was that police had come to his house in the evening and at that time he told the facts to it. He denied that he made statement Ex. PL to the police. However, he admitted that it bore his signatures. The aforementioned letter Ex. PX was got examined by the prosecution from the Handwriting Expert, who vide report Ex. PX/1 found the writing to be same and similar with the standard writing of Jyoti deceased.

Rajiv Lochan Jain admitted, while being cross-examined by the prosecution, that he had seen a letter with the police the same very evening. According to him, the same had been searched by the police. He even did not deny that the letter in question was not the same which had been handed over to the police by him.

Aforementioned letter Ex. PX gives a tell-tale story as to what was the reason for Jyoti in first administering poison to her two minor children and thereafter consuming the same so as to commit suicide. She mentioned about the way as to how the accused committed cruelties and tortures on her, especially in relation to his sexual habits. According to her, his entire life revolved around sEx. He only needed body of a woman. His hunger would last only uptil that and he treated woman as a toy for satisfaction of sEx. He did not care for any living life with honour and respect.

The authenticity of the letter Ex. PX could also not be doubted as it contained names of persons, name of the village, date of the marriage, date of birth of the two children, the hospital where the children were born, the type of operation with which children were born, which could be known only to Jyoti deceased as well as her husband Sohan Raj Sharma. No third person would have known those facts. On the day of the incident, the near family members of Jyoti were not present. Her brother John J. Lall PW7, who was resident of Bareily was categoric enough to say that he came to know about the death of his sister through a telegram received from the police. He had deposed that his sister Jyoti had married to the accused against the wishes of the family. None of his family member was present at the time of her marriage. Said John J. Lall was only a casual visitor to the house of the deceased. Once he had met his sister Jyoti arid found her to be sad. She did not disclose to him about the cause of her sadness.

In his testimony, Keshav Parshad PW6, who was a tenant in one of the portion of the house where the accused resided with the three deceased, did state in his examination-in-chief about Jyoti abusing her husband in the morning of the day of the occurrence. During his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he stated about his coaxing the accused, as a result whereof the accused left the attachi with him and went to his office in Delhi. This also shows that all was not well in the house of the accused and Jyoti deceased.

Towards the end of letter Ex. PX Jyoti made a mention that she was tolerating all what was being done to her by the accused. However, one circumstance aggravated the entire situation. It pertained to the accused making sexual overtures towards his daughter. This could not be tolerated by Jyoti. This last straw appeared to have broken the back of the camel. She found it appropriate to end the life of her children as well as hers so as to get rid of all the problems for all times to come. She even expressed her wish that her husband should not even touch their dead-bodies. In case her husband''s elder brother considered them to be his family members, he should cremate them in Balotar Shahr. She took the entire responsibility upon herself regarding the death of her two children. She felt compelled to do the act as she did not want to leave them to her husband.

The testimony of Anita Parmar DWI is not sufficient to show that Jyoti deceased was lesbian. No reliance can be placed upon the same. In case such an incident had happened with her, especially when she was 22 years of age at that time and still unmarried, she would have raised hue and cry and informed her father, who was sleeping in the adjoining room. Such being the nature of her testimony, the same cannot be believed.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the circumstances put forward by the prosecution do not make out commission of any offence u/s 306 IPC. For bringing the offence under the said provision of law, evidence was required to be led that it was the accused who instigated his wife to take the extreme step of commission of suicide. Reliance in that regard has been placed upon Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Randhir Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 2004 (13) SCC 129 and Harjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

There is no dispute with the proposition of law enunciated in the aforementioned judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, it is to be seen if the circumstances led by the prosecution fulfill the requirement of the word ''instigation'' as defined in Section 107 IPC.

In the present case, letter Ex. PX is sufficient material available on the file to show that the accused treated Jyoti deceased in a perverse manner. He had his own characteristically sexual preferences, instead of caring for living life with honour and respect. AH his interest was confined to sEx. The things culminated to such a pass when the accused made sexual overtures towards his six years old daughter. This showed the level to which the accused could stoop in even advancing towards his own daughter with sex at the back of his mind.

In view of the above, it is held that the prosecution has been able to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. No ground for interference in the impugned judgment of conviction is made out. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant u/s 306 IPC is maintained.

Coming to the question of sentence, it may be seen that the occurrence had taken place on 06.05.1991. The appellant lost his wife and both children in the said incident. He remained in jail as an under-trial from 09.05.1991 uptil 11.06.1991. He was thereafter taken into custody on 02.11.1993 when he was convicted by the trial Court and remained in jail upto 30.06.1994, upon having been granted the concession of bail by this Court. He, thus, served an actual period of nine months in jail. The petitioner had been lacing the agony of the criminal prosecution for the last more than 15 years. Ends of justice would be amply met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to RI for five years.

Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of by maintaining the conviction of the appellant u/s 306 IPC but simultaneously reducing the sentence of RI from seven years to RI for five years.