State of H.P. vs Balbir Singh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the Judgment dated 10.3.1998 delivered by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 10/97 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code.

It would be pertinent to mention here that the accused No. 2, Rashila Ram expired on 3rd April, 2010. In view of this development, the appeal against him stands abated. Therefore, the appeal is heard qua respondents No. 1 and 3 only.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the deceased Sudershna was married to the accused No. 1 Balbir Singh who is the son of Rashila Ram and Ishwari Devi, accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. It is also not disputed that Sudershna Devi (deceased) within seven years of her marriage consumed poison and committed suicide. According to the prosecution, the accused are guilty of having treated the deceased with cruelty to such an extent that she was forced to commit suicide and, therefore, guilty of such offences.

After Sudershna was admitted in the Civil Hospital at Baijnath, information regarding the fact that a lady who had consumed poison had been admitted in the hospital was given to the police by the doctor. Thereafter, Sub Inspector, Balwan Singh, PW/9 visited the hospital. He wanted to record the statement of Sudershna but she was unconscious at that time. The doctor declared that Sudershna Devi was not in a position to make a statement. Unfortunately, she expired soon thereafter.

Thereafter, the police recorded the statement of Kaka Ram, paternal uncle (Taya) of the deceased u/s 154, Cr.P.C. in which Kaka Ram complained that the deceased was the daughter of his younger brother, Kishori Lal who was working with the Railways at Jalandhar. According to him, out of the wedlock between Sudershana and Balbir, one daughter had been born. He alleged that whenever Sudershna used to visit her parental house, she used to complain about the ill-treated meted out to her by her inlaws and, therefore, he suspected foul play in the death of his niece. On the basis of this statement, FIR, Ext.PW2/B was lodged against the accused persons and investigation was done. The dead body of Sudershna Devi was sent for post mortem examination and viscera etc. was sent for chemical examination to FSL, Shimla. After investigation, the accused were charged with having committed the offences detailed here-in-above. They pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed trial. After trial, the accused were acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State.

The only question which arises for determination is whether the decease was compelled to commit suicide on account of cruelty meted out to her by the accused or not. To prove the charge of abetment u/s 306, IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the accused was treated in such a fashion that any normal person would have been forced to commit suicide because of such treatment. Unless such overt acts are proved, the accused cannot be convicted. The witnesses of the prosecution, i.e., her paternal uncle (PW/4), mother (PW/5), aunt (PW/6), sister (PW/7) and sister-in-law (PW/8) have not supported the prosecution version.

PW/4 Kaka Ram stated that when the police recorded his statement, he only complained that either the deceased had consumed poison or she had been administered the poison. According to him, he never complained about any ill-treatment being meted out to the deceased by her inlaws. This witness stated that the inlaws of the deceased were keeping her with love and affection. He further stated that the accused never maltreated the deceased. The public prosecutor never sought permission of the Court to cross-examine this witness or to confront him with his previous statement. Therefore, the prosecution has accepted whatever PW/4 stated in Court at its face value.

We need not to discuss the statements of the other relatives of the deceased in detail. It would be sufficient to say that all of them including the mother and the aunt of the deceased have stated that the deceased was being treated very well in the house of her inlaws and was never subjected to ill-treatment. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was ill-treated by her inlaws.

In view of the above discussion, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons are guilty of treating the deceased with cruelty envisaged u/s 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the learned Trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it, was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no reason to interfere in the well reasoned Judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. The appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.