State of Madhya Pradesh vs Virendra and Another

S.N. Aggarwal, J.—This criminal appeal by special leave u/s 378 Code of Criminal Procedure granted by this Court vide its order dated 11/10/2004, is preferred by the State aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Trial Court dated 18/11/2003 in Sessions Trial Case No. 400/02 whereby Respondents have been acquitted of charge u/s 306/34 IPC.

I have heard the arguments of Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of Appellant/State and Mr. Madhukar Kulshreshtha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. I have also perused the entire record of the Trial Court and have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

The Respondents being the son and mother were tried for offence u/s 306/34 IPC in relation to suicide committed by the deceased Shrimati Rani, married to Respondent No. 1 on 25/2/2001. The deceased had died an unnatural death by hanging in her matrimonial home on 10/8/2002 and this death took place within seven years of her marriage. There was no complaint against the Respondents by any of the family members of deceased''s parental house regarding cruelty meted out to her or demand of dowry from her till the date she committed suicide by hanging on 10/8/2002. The information of suicide by the deceased was given to the Police by none else but brother of Respondent No. 1 and son of Respondent No. 2. Panchayatnama of dead body of the deceased was prepared which is Ex.P/3 and bears the signatures of the mother and brother of the deceased, besides signatures of other persons. This Panchayatnama (Ex.P/3) on its back contains an opinion of S.H.O. regarding cause of death of the deceased and a perusal of the same would show that the deceased had committed suicide of her own without any instigation or abetment to her from anybody. No member of the parental family of the deceased made any murmur or complaint either to the Police or to any other authority about the deceased being treated with cruelty, much less, in connection with demand of dowry, even after they came to know about the death of the deceased by hanging in her matrimonial home on 10/8/2002. A suicide note in the hand writing of the deceased, found tied with a corner of her saree which the deceased was wearing at the time of her death, was recovered by the Police and the said suicide note is Ex.P/14 which is extracted below:

eSa Jherh jkuh >k esjh ''kknh ohjsUnz >k ls rkjhd 25- 2- 2001 dks gqbZ exj esjs irh bl ''kknh ls [kql ugha gS oks eq>s ilUn ugha djrs vkSj esjh lkl Hkh eq+{ks ilan ugha djrh bldk dkj.k gS fd esjh gkbZM yEckbZ de gS blfy, oks eq>s ilUn ugha djrs vkSj oks eq>s ysdj cgqr nq[kh jgrs gSa ij eSa mUgsa nq[kh ugha ns[k ldrh eSa ugha pkgrh dh oks esjs dkj.k nq[kh jgsa esa vius ifjokj esa vius dkj.k fdlh dks nq[kh ugha ns[kuk pkgrh esa ugha pkgrh dh esjs dkj.k dksbZ nq[kh gks bl fy, esus ;g Qslyk fd;k gS fd eSa vkRegLrk djus tk jgh gw ;g vkRekgR;k flQZ eq>s viuh yEckbZ de gksus ds dkj.k djuh iM+ jgh gS A eSa Hkxoku ls ;g izkFkZuk d:axh dh Hkxoku fdlh Hkh yMdh dks dq:i uk cuk, ugha rks mldk thou ujd ds leku gks tkrk gS A mldks lHkh eSa viuh vkRegR;k viuh ejth ls dj jgh gwa bldk dkj.k gS fd eSjs dkj.k eSjs irh vkSj esjh lkl nq[kh gS esa vkSj oks eq>s ilUn ugha djrs ij esa vius ifr dks cgqr I;kj djrh gwa ij esa muls dg ugha ldrh ohjsUnz esa bl nqfu;k dks NksM+ dj tk jgh gwa A esjs dkj.k rqEgkjh ftUnxh cjckn gqbZ gS u bl fy, esa ugha pkgrh dh esjs dkj.k rqEgkjh ftUnxh cjckn gks vkSj rqe nq[kh jgks bl fy, esa rqEgs NksM dj tk jgh gwa rwe [kql jguk esa Hkxoku ls izkFkZuk d:axh dh oks rqEgs [kql j[ks esa rqEgsa cgqr I;kj djrh gwa eSa tk jgh gwaA

rqEgkjh jkuh ftls rqe uQjr djrs gks uke jkuh >k nLr[kr 9- 8- 2002

It is after more than twenty days of the suicide committed by the deceased, an FIR u/s 306/34 IPC was registered against the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased in which vague allegations of demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the deceased were made by her parents. The learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment has considered the entire testimony produced by the prosecution and by its well reasoned order has arrived at a conclusion that the Respondents cannot be accused of abetting the suicide by the deceased. The suicide note (Ex.P/14) left by the deceased speaks for itself and proves that the Respondents are not guilty of abetment within the meaning of Section 306/34 IPC.

Para 58 of the impugned judgment is relevant and is extracted below:

bl izdj.k esa ;|fi jkuh dks mlds ekrk&firk ds ?kj tkus ls budkj ugha fd;k x;k cfYd mldk dn NksVk gksus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz ds nq[kh jgus dk mYys[k izn''kZ ih & 14 ds i= esa fd;k x;k gS A e`frdk jkuh dk dn NksVk gksus ds dkj.k vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz }kjk �wjrk ls is''k vkus ckcr dksbZ lk{; ekStwn ugha gS cfYd e`frdk ds Hkkoqd ,oa laosnu''khy gksus ds dkj.k eu esa ghu Hkkouk ik fy;s tkus dk leFkZu mijksDr lk{kh yPNhjke rFkk jk/ks/;ke }kjk fd;k x;k gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz rFkk lkfo=h ckbZ jkuh ds fBxis dm ds dkj.k nq[kh jgrs Hkh gksa rks mUgsa mldh vkRegR;k ds nq"izsj.k dk vijk/kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk A

This Court is in complete agreement with the above reasoning given by the Trial Court for not acquitting the Respondents of charges against them u/s 306/34 IPC. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Appellant/State could not point out any reason much less a cogent reason to take a view different than the view on the testimony taken by the Trial Court for acquitting the Respondents of charges u/s 306/34 IPC. This Court is of the view that the suicide note (Ex.P/14) left by the deceased is an important document and cannot be brushed aside. It is a matter of record that the deceased has committed suicide in her matrimonial home within one and a half year of her marriage. In case there was any abetment to her for committing suicide on the part of the Respondents, then while she was dying she would not have spared them. She has given a reason in the suicide note why she committed suicide and the reason for suicide given by her was that her husband being Respondent No. 1 herein was not happy with her because of her low height and that she did not want to see her husband miserable on that count. The said reason given by the deceased in her suicide note, by no means, amounts to abetment within the meaning of Section 306 IPC.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed.