State of H.P. vs Sunil Kumar

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.—Respondent Sunil Kumar, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has been acquitted of the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 25.2.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 22-G/VII/2009.

The prosecution aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment on the ground inter alia that learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence qua torturing and maltreatment of the deceased Reena Devi at the hands of her husband, the accused, in its right perspective and to the contrary recorded the findings of acquittal on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

Ms. Reena Devi, an unfortunate young lady of around 24 years of age, committed suicide on 3.2.2009 in the matrimonial home and it is the accused, who allegedly abated the commission of suicide by her.

The deceased was married to the accused about four years ago of her death on 3.2.2009. The complaint is that accused, who was a labourer and having meager income, started torturing and maltreating her immediately after the marriage as and when she asked him to give her money, the accused any how or other was managing the household affairs out of his meager income. At occasions, he even compelled the deceased to bring money from her parents so that he can start some business. He allegedly was commenting and taunting her that she does not know any work including cooking of food. It is her mother, PW-2 Yudhiya Devi, who made such statement during the course of inquest proceedings and in the FIR Ex. PW-5/B, recorded at her instance. She apprehended that her deceased daughter Reena Devi has committed suicide on being tortured and beaten up by the accused as and when she asked him to give her money and also by compelling her to bring money from her parents.

Having gone through the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., and the documents annexed thereto as well as on finding a prima facie case under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code made out against the accused, the trial Court framed charge against him accordingly.

On denial to the charge so framed by the accused, learned trial Court has proceeded further to take on record the prosecution evidence. It is seen that the material prosecution witnesses are Smt. Yudhiya Devi PW-2 mother of the deceased and PW-3, Sanjeev Kumar, her brother. Another material witness PW-6, Ashok Kumar, Member, Gram Panchayat, Sulah, has, however, resiled from his statement recorded by the investigating agency, hence turned hostile to the prosecution. The remaining witnesses are formal as PW-1 Dr. Priti Sood, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Palampur has conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased along with Dr. Karan Singh, PW-4 HC Joginder Singh, the then MHC Police Station, Palampur, PW-7 Constable Raj Kumar, carried out the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga for analysis and PW-5 SI Surjit Singh, the Investigating Officer.

The accused, on the other hand, not examined any evidence in his defence except for his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which he has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence being wrong and has come forward with the version that he is innocent and the prosecution witnesses being closely related to the deceased have deposed against him falsely.

As noticed at the very outset, learned trial Court, on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence, has concluded that no case under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC is made out against the accused. He has, therefore, been acquitted of the charge.

Learned Additional Advocate General strenuously contended that the commission of suicide by the deceased wife in the matrimonial home within four years of her marriage is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that it is the accused, who abated the commission of suicide by abusing, administering beating and torturing her mentally. Also that the factum of death in the matrimonial home shifts the onus on the accused to prove otherwise that the commission of suicide by her has not been abated by him or that he never maltreated or tortured her.

On the other hand, learned defence counsel has forcefully contended that there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused ever administered beatings to the deceased or tortured her at the pretext of dowry. According to learned defence counsel, as per the admitted case, the accused had very meager income as such any how or other, he was managing the house hold affairs including both end meet of the family with great difficulty. The deceased, a young lady having high expectation, seems to have committed suicide as her husband, the accused, did not come up to her expectation.

Before coming to the respective contentions and the evidence available on record, we deem it appropriate to discuss legal aspect of the matter. The bare perusal of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code reveals that sine qua non to infer the commission of an offence thereunder is subjecting the wife to maltreatment by her husband or his relative(s) with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or willful conduct of the husband or his relative of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health.

In order to constitute the commission of an offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution was required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Reena Devi has committed the suicide and that it is her husband the accused, who on account of certain acts, deed or conduct, abated the commission of suicide by her. A coordinate Bench of this Court in State of H.P. versus Pradeep Singh & Another, 2014 (1) Him. L.R. (DB) 71, after taking into consideration the law laid down by the apex Court in various judicial pronouncements, has held as under:-

"14. Abetment has been defined u/s 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Its simple meaning is that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing can be said to have abetted the doing of that thing.

Now if coming to the case in hand, whether it is the accused alone, who instigated the deceased to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC, has to be seen from the evidence available on record. It is worthwhile to mention here that in a case of this nature, torture and harassment ordinarily is meted out to the victim in the four walls of the house and such cases mostly depend upon the circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct evidence, the legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act which provides that if a married woman commits suicide within the period of seven years from the date of marriage and there are allegations that she did so because of being subjected to cruelty either by her husband or relatives of her husband or by both. Having regard to all other circumstances, the Court can presume that she has committed suicide on being abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. The Apex Court in Wazir Chand and Another Vs. State of Haryana, has held that if any person instigates any other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

In a case of suicidal death, the onus to prove that suicide was abetted by the accused alone is on the prosecution and to raise the presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act, one of the ingredients that the deceased was subjected to cruelty is required to be proved first by the prosecution."

Adverting to the evidence available on record, the deceased admittedly was the wife of the accused. She committed suicide on 3.2.2009 in the matrimonial home. One of the ingredients of the commission of an offence u/s 306 IPC, therefore, stands established on record. Whether the cause of commission of suicide by the deceased was her torturing and maltreatment at the hands of the accused alone and none-else or it is he who abated the commission of suicide by her has to be seen in the light of the evidence available on record.

The very first version qua the occurrence as has come on record by way of the statement made by Smt. Yudhiya Devi, PW-2 during the course of inquest proceedings and also in the FIR, disclosed the following so called instances of cruelty:-

i) Accused-husband was working as labourer and having meager income;

ii) out of his meager income arranging both ends meet of the family with great difficulty;

iii) On demand of money by the deceased wife from him, he used to beat her;

iv) the deceased had been informing her mother PW-2 and brother PW-3 qua her maltreatment and torturing at the hands of the accused over telephone and also as and when used to visit their place;

v) the demand of money to start some business and torturing at the pretext of dowry;

vi) comments and taunting on her style of working and utterances that she even not know as to how the food is cooked.

It is worthwhile to mention here that as per FIR Ex. PW-5/B, the parents of deceased reported the matter to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sulah, who called the accused and told him not to torture the deceased.

Now coming to the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of Smt. Yudhiya Devi, PW-2, she admits that accused was working in a tents shop and earning Rs. 500/- per month. The so called instances of cruelty detailed supra have also been highlighted by her while in the witness-box. In her cross-examination, she admits that her daughter was not even getting food also as it was difficult for them to arrange for their both ends meet. It is not that the complainant party was not aware about the accused was working as labourer and financial conditions of his family prior to solemnization of the marriage because PW-2 in her cross-examination tells us that before the marriage both families inquired about each other and were aware that the accused was working in a tents shop. She admits that the accused used to go to attend to his duty in the morning and come back in the evening, but still was unable to provide good clothes to her daughter, the deceased.

PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar also tells us that the accused had been demanding dowry and not allowing the deceased to visit their house. He was told by the deceased about the beatings and demand of dowry after pretty long time of marriage by his deceased sister. He also tells us that a complaint against the accused was made to Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sulah. As per his version it appears to him that his sister consumed poison on account of her torturing by the accused. This is the only evidence as has come on record qua the aspect of the maltreatment and torturing of the deceased at the hands of the accused.

The instances quoted hereinabove even if believed to be true, not constitute the torturing or maltreatment of the deceased either within the meaning of Sections 498-A or 306 IPC. The same at the most can be treated to be wear and tear of the routine married life. The apex Court in Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and Others, has held that mere harassment of wife by the husband, due to differences per se does not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The present is also not a case where it can be said that the alleged acts of omissions and commissions amount to instigation within the meaning of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code to hold that the accused is responsible for creating such circumstances, which provoked or forced Reena to take extreme step of putting an end to her life. In our considered opinion, the urge to live is a natural phenomena. One has chosen the bangs of death on account of instigation at the instance of someone else needs high degree of proof qua such instigation and in a case of this nature qua the harassment, humiliation and maltreatment of the deceased in the matrimonial home at the hands of her husband and his relatives.

In the light of what has been said hereinabove, true it is that, in the present case deceased has committed suicide in the matrimonial home within four years of her marriage with the accused, however, what to speak of high degree of proof qua her maltreatment and harassment, it is not at all established beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused, who on account of his unbecoming conduct, behaviour or act and deeds instigated her to commit suicide. The instances of maltreatment disclosed by PW-2 remained unreported. The factum of the complaint, if any, lodged with Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sulah, is not proved on record as the Pradhan has not been examined. The ward member Shri Ashok Kumar, PW-6 has turned hostile to the prosecution and come forward with the version that neither the deceased ever was treated with cruelty by the accused nor any complaint in this regard was lodged by her parent with the Gram Panchayat.

On the other hand, the evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of PW-2 complainant leads to the only conclusion that the accused belongs to a very poor family and was earning meager amount by way of working as labourer. He, as per the version of PW-2, was arranging for both ends meet of the family with great difficulty. It can reasonably be believed that the deceased was living with financial constraints and hardship. Also that she being a young lady of 24 years of age might have some expectation, dreams and to have all amenities of life including good food, clothes, and sufficient money to meet other social obligations. The accused, however, was not able to fulfill the same and it is when he failed to come up to her expectation, she being sensitive enough had decided to avoid such miserable life and taken the extreme step to commit suicide. It is, however, not proved that the accused had abated the commission of suicide by her. The presumption u/s 113-A of the Evidence Act, therefore, stands rebutted in the given facts and circumstances of this case.

The upshot of the discussion hereinabove would, therefore, be that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in acquitting the accused of the charge u/s 498-A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment, therefore, calls for no interference by this Court.

For all the reasons hereinabove, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bond furnished by the accused shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.