Vijay Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vimla Singh Kapoor, J

The marriage of the deceased and the accused was solemnized in the year 1997 and out of their wedlock 2 issues were also born to them. It is

alleged that on 10.05.2003 there was a little dispute between the husband and wife over the medical treatment of their children, and in furtherance of

that dispute the appellant is said to have slapped the deceased. This small dispute coupled with slapping made the deceased leave the house. When the

deceased did not return home, a search was made and on the next day the body was found floating in the nearby well. The body was first seen

floating in the well by Subhdra (PW-9) and Baspati (PW-3) when they had gone to the well for fetching water. Merg (Ex.P-2) was recorded, inquest

(Ex.P-4) was drawn by the police in presence of the Panch witnesses and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. After

completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC followed by framing of charge under the

said sections.

Learned Court below vide judgment impugned dated 18.01.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.234/2003 found the charges under these two sections

of the Indian Penal Code proved and thus convicted the accused/appellant accordingly imposing the sentence of 3 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-

under Section 306 IPC and one year RI with fine of Rs.1000 under Section 498-A IPC, plus default stipulations.

Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that the allegation of demand of dowry and resultant abetment to commit suicide is merely an

afterthought by the parents of the deceased. He submits that none of the witnesses has stated regarding the sour relation between the accused and

the deceased and they lived happy married life all throughout. He submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken in its entirety, no case

under Section 306 or 498-A IPC is made out. He submits that barring some dispute on the date of incident over the medical treatment of their children,

nothing has come out from the record to establish the case under Section 498-A or 306 IPC. Lastly, it has been argued that in view of the clear cut

evidence favouring the accused, the judgment impugned has to be set aside and the accused/appellant should be acquitted of the charges levelled

against him.

State counsel however supported the judgment impugned and submits that there is ample evidence to show that after being slapped by the accused

the deceased left the house and threw herself into the well by embracing death leaving her two minor kids behind. He submits that had the act of the

accused/appellant not been apathetic, the deceased would not have end her life that too by leaving 2 small children. Being a well reasoned judgment,

as argued by the State counsel, no interference is required to be made therewith.

Kapil Dev (PW-2) who happens to be the brother of the accused in relation is the witness who informed the police about the incident. He has

stated that he never came across anything ill between the accused and the deceased. He has stated that he came to know about the body of the

deceased floating in the nearby well when Subdhadra (PW-9) and Baspati (PW-3) had gone to fetch water. After being informed, this witness is also

said to have reached the spot and seen the body in the well. Next day the police arrived in the village, took out the body from the well but no injury

was visible thereon. Except stating that, he was informed by the accused/ appellant about the minor dispute between him and the deceased over the

medical treatment of their children, the accused/appellant had not told him anything else. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that the

accused and the deceased lived in his house as tenant for number of years but he did not come to know anything bad between them. He has stated

that the accused/appellant never made any demand of dowry either from the deceased or from her parents. PW-9 and PW-3 who had first seen the

body of the deceased in well have also not stated about any dispute between the accused and the deceased. The evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9

on the other hand suggests that the deceased herself was a short tempered woman and many a time she used to plunge into the dispute in the family

and even in the neighbourhood. PW-9 has been declared hostile. However, in the cross-examination she has clarified that the relationship between the

accused and the deceased was never reported to be bad nor any demand was ever made by the accused either from the deceased or her parents.

PW-4 has also stated in the same tone and tenor that he never heard about any dispute between the deceased and the accused. PW-6 has not stated

anything specific. PW-7 â€" the witness to inquest has admitted his signature in the inquest Panchnama. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer who has

supported the case of the prosecution. PW-10 is the father of the deceased and he has made number of allegations about demand of dowry and

resultant harassment put by the accused/appellant to the deceased and this thing was informed by his daughter whenever she used to visit his house.

Of course, the perplexed father is bound to state such things against the accused after losing his beloved daughter, however, the fact remains that

when the deceased was consistently apprising him about the misdeeds of the accused right from the beginning, he should not have sat idle but must

have made the report to the police in that regard so that the wrong if any must have been nipped at the bud itself, but unfortunately he did not do that

and waited for this unfortunate moment which is not acceptable in the eye of law. Mere small bickering and stamping of slaps in furtherance thereof

cannot be said to be abetment to the deceased wife to commit suicide. Such stray instances are common in the households. The abetment as defined

in Section 107 IPC, for ready reference, is reproduced as under:-

“Section 107. Abetment of a thing.â€"A person abets the doing of a thing, whoâ€

(First) â€" Instigates any person to do that thing; or

(Secondly) â€"Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place

in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

(Thirdly) â€" Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.â€"A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily

causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.â€​

If entire evidence adduced by the prosecution is taken as it is, this Court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution has not made out its case

under Section 306 IPC much less 498-A IPC as not even a single ingredient of abetment is attracted to the case in hand. In the identical matters the

same view has been taken in the matter of Kishori Lal Vs. State of MP in 2007 (10) SCC 797, Kuvaria Bai Vs. State of MP (Now CG) in 2018 (1)

CGLJ 102, K.V. Prakash Babu Vs. State of Karnataka in 2016 (4) Crimes 184 (SC) and Pinakin Mahipatry Rawal Vs. State of Gujrat in 2013 (10)

SCC 48.

In this view of the factual and legal position, the accused/appellant cannot be said to have abetted the deceased to end her precious life in any

manner whatsoever. Conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 306 and 498-A IPC is therefore, set aside and the accused/appellant is

acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Appellat is reported to be on bail and therefore, the bail bonds furnished by him stand discharged.

Appeal is thus allowed. Â