State of Jammu & Kashmir. vs Yash Pal and anr

Mr. Justice J.P. Singh, J.—Smt. Prabha married to respondent No.1-Yash Pal in the year 1996 died on June 4, 1997. Her father- Des Raj,

complained to the police that her daughter was murdered by her husband-Yash Pal and sister-in-law-Ashu, who were stated carrying illicit

relationship. Proceedings u/s 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, initiated on Des Raj s Complaint, culminated into registration of FIR No.

144/97 u/s 302 RPC at Police Station R.S.Pura, Jammu.

The investigation carried out in the FIR, however, substantiated a case punishable under Sections 306/498-A R.P.C against Yash Pal and Ashu

as Offence u/s 302 RPC was not found to have been made out.

After a full-dressed trial, the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, the trial Court, acquitted the respondents finding the

prosecution evidence shaky and conflicting.

The First Informant s statement about illicit relationship between Yash Pal and Ashu was not found acceptable for reasons spelt out in the

Judgment. The prosecution story of ill-treatment of Prabha Devi by the respondents too was disbelieved for lack of requisite evidence in support

thereof.

The State of Jammu and Kashmir has questioned respondents acquittal by this Appeal. Ms. Z.S.Watali, learned Deputy Advocate General,

appearing for the State submitted that acquittal recorded by the trial Court, proceeding on the premise that illicit relationship between Yash Pal and

Ashu would not amount to abetment and suicide, was illegal and against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dammu Sreenu

Vs. State of A.P., .

The respondents were liable to be convicted and punished on the basis of the evidence that the prosecution had produced substantiating its case

as set out in the Final Police Report, says the learned counsel. Referring to Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, and the judgments referred

to by the trial Court, the respondents learned counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the view taken by the trial Court about prosecution s

failure to produce evidence to prove that there was illicit relationship between the accused and they had treated the deceased with cruelty, was

based on proper appreciation of evidence which may not warrant interference in Appeal.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. Learned State

counsel s plea that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in holding that illicit relationship of the two accused would not amount to instigation to

commit suicide punishable u/s 306 RPC was illegal and against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, may not arise for consideration

in the present case, for, the view taken in Dammu Sreenu s case referred to by the learned State Counsel proceeds on the factual findings of the

three Courts proving that there was illicit relationship inter se accused, whereas there is no such finding in the present case and rather the finding,

based on appreciation of evidence, on the other hand, is categoric and specific that the prosecution had failed to prove illicit relationship inter se

respondents.

Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by the Three Judge Bench of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kumar s case

(supra), the State counsel s plea, based on Dammu Sreenu s Case (supra), may not be sustainable. While dealing with the issue as to what would

the expression Abetment , when read in terms of Section 107 RPC connote, Hon'ble Supreme Court, held in Ramesh Kumar s case as follows:-

Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act . To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary

that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet

a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his

acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit

suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to

actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.

In State of W.B v. Orilal Jaiswal this Court has cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of

each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end

her life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and

difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not

expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for

basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.

In view of the above legal position settled by a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on the issue as to what would abetment

to commit suicide connote, the State counsel s plea based on Dammu Sreenu s case, cannot be accepted because the circumstances of the present

case, even if the prosecution case had to be accepted, which, however, its evidence does not so prove, do not suggest instigation to goad, urge

forward, provoke, incite or encouragement to the deceased to commit suicide. To attract the provisions of Section 107 of the Code, the act

complained of must be such so as to lead a person of ordinary prudence to commit the act abetted. The facts and circumstances of the present

case, do not, however, suggest any such inference much less proof, on the strength of the evidence produced in the case.

Learned State counsel s next plea that the evidence produced by the prosecution was mis-appreciated by the trial Court and its conclusion

about prosecution s failure to prove its case was unjustified too is found without merit, in that, while disbelieving the Statements of the prosecution

witnesses, the trial Court has given cogent reasons to support its findings.

This apart, the law on the subject being well settled that if two views were possible on the evidence on records, the view taken favouring the

accused may not need interference in Appeal against acquittal, the findings returned by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu

recording respondents acquittal which are otherwise also well merited may not warrant interference in Appeal for all what has been said above.

Thus found without merit, the State s Appeal is dismissed.