State of Jammu and Kashmir vs Sheela Devi and Others

M.Y. Kawoosa, J.—One Suresh Kumari daughter of Amar Nath was married to respondent No. 2-accused. For the last 5 years she

remained issueless as a result of which her mother-in-law, husband and brother-in-law who are respondents/accused respectively used to taunt her

with an intention to drive her from the house or to compel her to dissolve the marriage with respondent No. 2. On 9-9-1997 also she was nagged

by the accused as a result of which she drenched herself with kerosene oil and committed suicide. Concerned police station registered a case

against the respondents u/s 306, RPC and after the investigations, found the accused guilty of offence u/s 306, RPC. The case was committed to

the Sessions Judge, Kathua for trial. Sessions Judge, Kathua, discharged all the accused persons from the charge levelled against them and charge

was not framed against any of the respondents. Learned Sessions Judge, Kathua in his judgment held:-

On the reading of this section the presumption as to abetment of suicide is drawable against husband of such a woman who committed suicide or

relation of the husband if there is material on the file to indicate that the husband or a relation of husband having subjected such a woman to cruelty

of any kind as defined u/s 498-A of RPC before her death. There must be reasonable nexus between the cruelty and the suicide and the cruelty

must be such as is likely to drive a woman to suicide. As indicated that from the statement of witnesses there is nothing to show that besides

taunting and nagging Suresh Kumari deceased for being unproductive and unfortunate for their family, never ill-treated or harassed her. This

behave iour on the part of the accused towards the deceased cannot be taken as 'cruelty' as contemplated Under-Section. 498-A which means a

wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or danger to her life, limb or health or harassment with a view to

coerce her relative to meet unlawful demand of any property. As a result of which no presumption is drawable in the case in hand against the

accused that they abetted Suresh Kumari deceased (the wife of the accused No. 2) to commit suicide.)

The above order was passed by the Sessions Judge, Kathua, on 18-4-1998 which is assailed before this Court by way of criminal revision

petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Cases relied on by them are as follows :-

(1) Bansiya and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, .

(2) 'Dhanna Ram v. State of Rajasthan' 1995 (3) Crimes 108: (1995 AIHC 4699) (Raj).

(3) Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, .

(4) 'Protima Dutta v. State' 1977 Cri LJ 96 (Cal).

(5) Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh and others, .

Before addressing myself to the argument advanced and the point involved, I have not to ignore that the case was disposed of at the stage of

charge. Scope of the trial Judge is very limited at this stage to exercise the power for discharging the accused. At this stage it is only to be seen

whether the case is made out for charge prima facie or not.

Learned counsel for the respondents has rightly relied on Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Another, paragraph 15 is relevant. The

Apex Court has rightly observed that the Sessions Judge is always busy with huge work. He should not hesitate to discharge the accused if he

believes that even if the prosecution evidence u/s 161 and the material produced by the police does not make out any case and in the long run and

there is no probability for any conviction of the accused. Now simple point here is whether there is evidence on record u/s 161,CPC which could

justify the discharge. There are the statements of prosecution witnesses, father, mother and brother-in-law of the deceased on the record to show

that the respondents-accused persons were always taunting, nagging, and harassing the deceased and while rebuking her for being not fertile so far

as the birth of children is concerned. They would always call her by the name of 'Manhoos'. 'Manhoos' means very .very unfortunate for the family.

I think this word alone is sufficient to cause mental depression to the married girl to go to any extent. Trial Judge has admitted that this sort of

cruelty was meted out to the deceased but he is of the view that this is not a wilful or overt act to instigate the lady to commit suicide. Abetment

Under-Section. 107, RPC is based on instigation. There should be either instigation or conspiracy or intentionally aid or doing an illegal act for the

doing of suicide. Proof of abetment regarding other offences mentioned in the RPC is quite different from the procedure to be adopted for proving

the abetment regarding commission of suicide by a the married girl. Regarding the suicide of married girl, there is an additional provision in

Evidence Act which is 114(c). It says about how to draw a presumption of abetment with regard to suicide of a married woman. Ingredient of this

provision is that a girl must be married. She must have committed suicide within 7 years of marriage and she must have been subjected to cruelty.

Here the case is that the deceased was married. Committed suicide on the 5th year of marriage. Now the question remains whether she was

subjected to cruelty or not. Cruelty has been defined in 498-A Explanation :-

Explanation : For the purposes of this section 'cruelty' means -

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit Suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or

health whether mental or physical of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for

any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Learned counsel for the respondents has laid stress that the accused have not instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Even if she was

harassed or taunted, that was only with an intention that she should leave the house or she should be ready for divorce. I have failed to persuade

myself to agree with this view because if you are maltreating a married girl, taunting her, nagging her, harassing her and always telling her that she is

'Manhoos', bad omen for the family, she has grown old, and is incapable to bear an issue, I think this is sufficient to cause mental depression for the

lady to go to any extent. Even if the intention of the respondents is not that they wanted the deceased should commit suicide but they harassed her

in such a way that lady could under mental depression go to the extent of getting rid of life. It is apparently clear from the evidence that respondents

wanted to get rid of her. They also wanted her to leave the house or be prepared for divorce. For an Indian lady this is sufficient instigation to get

rid of the life also. It is not necessary that the respondents should tell the married girl to commit suicide. It is not necessary that the respondents

should provide her with the material for committing suicide but so far as the married girl is concerned, taunting her, rebuking her, harassing her,

mal-treating her, amounts to mental cruelty which can compel the married girl to take the extreme step to do away with her life. This expels the

whole argument advanced by the learned counsel for respondents who wanted to project that there should be an overt act for instigating the

married woman to commit suicide. It is in these circumstances legislature has provided an easy procedure u/s 114(c) of Evidence Act to draw a

presumption regarding the suicide of a married woman and cruelty has been stated to be sufficient for the instigation to commit suicide. See

'Protima Dutta v. State' 1977 Cri LJ 96 (Cal). In Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh and others, . This was a suspicious case as to whether

married woman had an accidental or suicidal death. Case was registered u/s 306. Father, Sister, of the deceased complained that there was

harassment and torture by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. In-laws also accuse deceased of carrying illegitimate child. Deceased

committed suicide because of harassment and constant taunts and torture. Trial Court convicted the accused. High Court reversed the judgment

and acquitted the accused. Went to the Apex Court. Apex Court by its judgment reversed the judgment of High Court and held (at page 570 of

Cri LJ)

Para 30. We have already referred hereinbefore to the evidences of the prosecution witnesses who clearly testified to the greedy and lusty nature

of the accused in that they persistently taunted the deceased and tortured her for not having brought sufficient dowry from her father. It is also in

evidence that they also taunted her for carrying an illegitimate child. All these tortures and taunts caused depression to her mind and drove her to

take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her person and setting fire. Circumstantial evidence as well as the

evidences of the prosecution witnesses clearly prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons instigated and abetted Ravinder Kour,

deceased in the commission of the offence by committing suicide by burning herself. The findings arrived, at by the trial Court after considering and

weighing the entire evidences are unexceptional. The findings arrived at by the High Court without considering properly the circumstantial evidence

as well as the evidences of the prosecution witnesses cannot be sustained. As such the findings of the High Court are liable to be reversed and set

aside.

I am of the view.that the trial Court judgment is misconceived and deserves to be set aside. For these reasons, therefore, trial Court judgment is

set aside. Trial Court is directed to frame charge u/s 306 against the accused persons and proceed with the trial. Any comment made in this

judgment should not prejudice the accused at the final stage of the case.