State of Punjab vs Raj Kumar and ors.

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Chuni Lal father of deceased Sunita alias Bholi reported to ASI Gian Singh of Police Station Batala at Khajuri Gate, Batala around 10.20 A.M. on 18th November, 1985 that his soninlaw Joginder Pal, his two brothers (of the soninlaw) named Raj Kumar and Prem Kumar, motherinlaw of the deceased named Savitri Devi and married sister of her husband named Savita had abetted the commission of suicide by his deceased daughter aforesaid around 9 00 P.M. on 17th November, 1985 and subjected her to cruelty envisaged in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for nearly 45 months prior thereto by raising demands of Rs. 10,000/ in cash for the construction of a Chaubara and a Jersy cow, a couple of months after her marriage with Joginder Pal, which was allegedly performed nearly 6 or 7 months before the date of occurrence.

On being charged with the commission of offences under sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code all the six accused individually pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 1987 learned trial court held both the charges framed against the accusedrespondents as not proved and acquitted them. Feeling aggrieved therefrom the State Government of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 420DBA of 1987 in this Court against their acquittal.

We have heard Shri S.K. Syal, Deputy Advocate General, for the appellantState, Shri A.S. Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondents (acquitted accused) and have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

The allegations set out in the First Information Report are, "My daughter Sunita was married with Joginder Pal alias Bhilla son of Janak Raj, Jargar, resident of Dhiran Mohalla Batala about 6/7 months back. Two months after the marriage of my daughter Sunita, her fatherinlaw Janak Rai, motherinlaw Savitri, Jeths (husband''s elder brothers) Raj and Prem Kumar started maltreating her and pressing her to bring an amount of Rs. 10,000/ and a Jersy cow from her parents. My daughter Sunita had also posted me a letter telling me that her inlaws were harassing her very much and were giving her threats to kill her. I, being poor, cannot meet their demands. On 14th November, 1985, the day of Tikka my daughter had come to me at Sujanpur. On that day also she had narrated the same story. Even then I had sent her along with my soninlaw to Batala after persuading her. About one month back also Savita, the sisterinlaw (husband''s sister) of my daughter had come and she also had threatened to kill her (my daughter)." To lend credence thereto and make it a substantive piece of evidence, Chuni Lal author of the First Information Report asserted as PW 1, "Sunita was my daughter and was, my eldest child. My daughter Sunita alias Bholi was married with Joginder Pal alias Bhilla accused present in court about 6/7 months before her death. Janak Raj accused present in Court is the father of Joginder Pal accused while Raj Kumar and Prem Kumar are his brothers. Savitri Devi accused is the mother of Joginder Pal. About 2 months after the marriage, all the five accused present in court started troubling Sunita and asked her to bring one Jersy cow and cash of Rs. 10,000/ from her parents. Sunita wrote a letter to me in this connection which is Ex. PA. I had been seeing Sunita writing and signing and I am familiar with her handwriting and signatures. The letter Ex. PA is in her hand. I received said letter in July 1985. On 14.11.1985 on the eve of Tikka Bhaidooj Sunita my daughter came to our house. She told us that all the 5 accused had been threatening to kill her and had been. insisting to bring a jersy cow and a cash of Rs. 10,000/ from her parents. Her husband was also with her when she visited our house. I advised Sunita to treat her inlaws family as her real family and should try to endear them so that they give up the demand for cow and cash. About a month before said Tikka day, Savita, sister of Joginder Pal had visited our house and had remarked that we were financially well up and that we should give them a sum. of Rs. 10,000/ to construct a Chobara." In crossexamination the witness further admitted, "I had stated in my statement Ex. PB that I had received the letter from Sunita about a month before her death and have not mentioned specifically the month of July (confronted Ex. PB were neither the month of July nor the letter having been received a month earlier is mentioned. The fact of receiving a letter from Sunita is mentioned). The letter Ex. PA bears one postal stamp. I had stated in Ex. PB that on 141185 Sunita had told us that the accused had been demanding a cow and Rs. 10,000/ failing which she would be finished. I had mentioned in my statement Ex. PB that Savita the sister of Joginder Pal had also threatened Sunita but I did not mention that she also asked us to part with a sum of Rs. 10,000/ so that they should construct a Chobara (Confronted Ex. PB where it is simply mentioned that Savita had also been threatening about a month before the occurrence.) The five accused had talked to me directly in respect of their demands for a cow and cash. The accused had been visiting our house separately. We had told the sister and father of Joginder Pal accused when they had come to our house about 2 months after the marriage that we were retunable to meet their demand and that they would drop our daughter at our house and also return us the articles given to her in marriage.

Youngest sister of the deceased named Shashi Bala PW 2 asserts, "Sunita alias Bholi deceased was my eldest sister. She was married with Joginder Pal accused present in Court about 56 months before her death. Soon after the marriage, all the 6 accused started maltreating Sunita because they had been asking her to bring more dowry from her parents and specifically a cash of Rs. 10,000/ and a jersy cow. Sunita deceased had written letter Exhibit PA to us in this regard and she had also been narrating her woeful story to us as and when she visited our house. There was Tikka Bhai Dooj on 14.11.85 and on that very day, she had come to our house along with her husband. She showed to us contusions on her body and told that she had been given beating by Savita accused and Savitri accused, her husband''s sister and mother. We told Joginder Pal accused that in that atmosphere we would not send Sunita with him. But he assured that Sunita would not be maltreated thereafter. On this assurance we sent Sunita with her husband. Savita accused had been coming to our house along with her family members that any of them happened to visit us and the only exception was on Tikka day. Savita accused had been insisting that we should give them a Jersy cow and cash of Rs. 10,000/ failing which Sunita would be beaten." Improvements indulged in by her in regard to showing of contusions by the deceased on her body and the imputation of their having been caused to her by Savita and Savitri, two of the six accused, as also their having declined to send Sunita with Joginder Pal accused are much too obvious and speak for themselves volumes against her credibility. In crossexamination the witness admitted that letters Exhibit DA and Exhibit DC were both in the hands of Sunita alias Bholi deceased.

It would thus appear that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to bring on record its assertion of intentional aiding of deceased by anyone of the six accused in the commission of suicide by her. The charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has, therefore, not been substantiated against anyone of the six accused arrayed as respondents in the state appeal filed against acquittal.

Evidence adduced in respect of the charge under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is the letter Exhibit PA and the oral deposition of the alleged demand of Rs. 10, 000 and a Jersy cow. In regard to letter Exhibit PA learned trial court observed, "However, the facts and circumstances of the case as brought on record clearly indicate that Ex. PA is a fabricated letter. In the first place it bears the stamp of Batala only and it has no stamp of Sujanpur to which place this letter was addressed. Even the date on the stamp of Batala could not be deciphered and PW 5 Harbhajan Singh a postal employee has stated in his examination in chief that only the year 1985 is legible on the seal and date and month stands scrapped. Moreover, the genuineness of the letter Ex. PA stands clearly belied by the letter Ex. DB which was admittedly written by Chuni Lal (P.W. 1) to Janak Raj accused from Sujanpur on 27785. In this letter, no reference of the letter dated 2785 (Ex. PA) allegedly written by Sunita deceased has been made. Moreover, the contents of the letter Ex. DB do not even remotely indicate if there was any sort of demand on the part of the accused from them. It is rather mentioned in this letter that Sunita had been praising to them all the members of her inlaws family and she had always been highlighting the good behaviour of her fatherinlaw and motherinlaw. There is indication in the letter Ex. DB that Sunita being unwell was under the treatment of Dr. Ashok Kumar of Pathankot who had advised her to have full sleep and to relax. The contents of this letter, therefore, amply prove that the letter Ex. PA is a fabricated document and it was never written by Sunita to her father. It may also be mentioned here that the occurrence took place on 171185 and Chuni Lal PW father of the deceased made his statement Ex. PB to the Police on 181185 at 10.20 A.M. but the letter Ex.PA was produced before the police on 251185. In case Chuni Lal had been in possession of this letter, he was supposed to have delivered the same to the police soon after lodging the report Ex. PB on 18111985. It seems that during all this time, this letter was fabricated and was then delivered to the police just to give strength to the allegations made by the father of the deceased in his statement Ex. PB. The naked eye examination of the contents of the letter Ex. DA and Ex. DC when compared with the writing on the letter Ex. PA clearly shows that there are apparent dissimilarities in the writing of the letter Ex. PA as compared to the writing of letters Ex. DA". Similarly in regard to the alleged demand of Rs. 10,000/ and Jersy cow learned trial court observed that the assertions made by the two prosecution witnesses in this regard get wholly negatived from the omission on the part of Chuni Lal PW 1 to make a mention of them in his letter Exhibit DB admittedly addressed by him to accused Janak Raj on 2771985. Recitals in Exhibit DA and Ex. DC admittedly written by Sunita alias Bholi also give a lie to the assertions now made by the prosecution witnesses against the accused. There was thus nothing before the learned trial court to warrant the returning of the finding of guilty against the accused under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well. The impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court on 3rd March, 1987 is, therefore, affirmed.

The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Asaram Mithal Singh Pardeshi and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 1315; Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; Bhagirath Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 924 and Tara Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 950 for disposal of an appeal against acquittal like the present one read: "Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that the presumption of innocence of an accused is not weakened by his acquittal by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court should consider every one of the grounds taken into consideration in favour of the accused by the Trial Court before setting aside his acquittal and further bear in mind the fact that the trial judge had the benefit of seeing the witnesses. An appellant aggrieved by overturning of his acquittal deserves the final court''s deeper concern on fundamental principles of criminal justice. An acquitted accused should be put in peril of conviction on appeal save where substantial and compelling grounds exist for Such course. In India, it is not a Jurisdictional limitation on the appellate court but a judge made guideline of circumspection. Dud weight must also be given to the opinion of the Trial Court as to the value of the oral evidence rendered by the eyewitness because the Trial Court had the advantage of observing the demeanour of the witnesses appearing before it. If two conclusions can be reasonably reached on the same evidence, one of which supports the acquittal, then the High Court should stay its hands from interfering with the order of the Trial Court. It is well settled that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction the High Court should not in such a situation reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court." Impugned judgment of acquittal having been rendered by the learned trial Court on the basis of cogent, convincing, plausible and legally sustainable reasons, we see no substantial and compelling reason for reversing it in the State Appeal filed against acquittal of the respondents. Dismissed.