State Of Chhattisgarh vs Dharampal

Arvind Kumar Verma, J

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

The present Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Sarguja, Ambikapur (C.G.), in Special Session Case No. 178/2012, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by giving benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the victim on 13.03.2018, at around 04:00 PM, was returning to her home after giving her science examination of class 10th, but the accused/respondent lured her to travel with him. The accused/respondent, misinformed the victim that they are going just to nearby town, whereas the accused/respondent made the victim travelled city to city and lastly, the victim was finally returned from Nagpur. Since there was a love affair between the accused and the deceased Sunidhi Giri, the accused, instead of marrying the deceased Sunidhi Giri, harassed her repeatedly and pressurized her to marry someone else and instigated or abetted her to commit suicide. Resultantly, the deceased Sunidhi Giri committed suicide by hanging herself on 07.08.2011. On 13.03.2018, the parents of the victim informed the police about the same, an FIR was registered against the accused under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent and, therefore, acquitted him from the offence charged.

Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of complainant in its true perspective and has succumbed to the conjectures and surmises. The learned trial Court has erred in considering the post-mortem report along with the suicide note, wherein the deceased victim has clearly stated the name of the offender. The handwriting expert has confirmed to the fact that the said suicide note has been written by the deceased victim. The learned trial Court also erred in considering the facts that the respondent/accused had constantly been threatening the victim to marry with another person and humiliated the victim through his action following which the victim took the step to end her life. However, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate and consider the case of the prosecution. She lastly contended that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is unjust, improper and bad in law, therefore, the same is liable to be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial Court after appreciating all the material available on record, has acquitted the respondents and the order of the trial court is just and proper warranting no interference.

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal.

On perusal of the record, it transpires the facts that from the statements and cross-examination of the witnesses, the offence charged is not clearly proved against the accused. The act of cruelty and harassment on the charge of inciting suicide is necessary to be committed before the death of the deceased. In this case, no fact has come to light that the accused harassed the deceased Sunidhi before her death by repeatedly pressurizing her to marry someone else instead of marrying him and, thus, there is no evidence of inciting or abetting or instigating her to commit suicide. It is a well established principle of law that doubt, no matter how strong it is, cannot take the place of proof. Where important facts in the case have not been established by oral evidence, there the prosecution facts cannot be considered valid even if the report of a handwriting expert is certified. In this case also, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the alleged crime has been committed by the accused. Also the Doctor (PW/2) has stated in his deposition that he had not found any sign of sexual assault from the postmortem of the deceased. Since rice was found in the stomach of the deceased, she had eaten food 3-4 hours before her death, it pays heed towards her mental condition that can be said to be normal. The case of the prosecution also appears to be doubtful due to the complete lack of any clear and material evidence as to whether the sexual assault and abetment of suicide was occurred to the deceased. The benefit of doubt goes to the accused and should be given to. Thus, the case of the prosecution against the accused is not proved reasonably from the evidence of the witnesses examined in the case. Therefore, the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “State of Rajasthan V/s Kistoora Ram” reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 984, has held as under:-

“8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.”

It is an admitted fact that the deceased Sunidhi committed suicide but there is no evidence with regard to abetment of commission of suicide. For commission of an offence under Section 306 of IPC, ingredients mentioned in Section 107 of IPC has to be established which may be mentioned as under:-

(i) instigating a person to commit an offence.

(ii) engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence.

(iii) intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence.

In the present case, the entire evidence is based on information that is hearsay in nature. The intention of the accused must have been proved by the prosecution that the accused did aid or instigate or incite or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The fact of abetment of suicide and the essential ingredients of commission of an offence are totally missing.

The order of acquittal is not to be lightly interfered with unless there has been grave miscarriage of justice or consideration of the evidence was perversed. Even if two conclusions are possible on the basis of the same evidence, the one favourable to the accused has to be taken and it will not be proper for the appellate Court to interfere with the acquittal merely because it may be of a different opinion. Failure to consider admissible evidence or admitting inadmissible evidence are some of the other grounds on which the order of acquittal may be interfered with. In the facts of the present case, none of the circumstances exists presently warranting interference.

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the finding arrived at by the trial Court is purely in accordance with law and the trial Court has not committed any error of law in reaching the said conclusion of acquitting the respondent from the above-mentioned charges levelled against him under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Appeal, thus, fails and is accordingly dismissed being totally devoid of merits.