Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1002 (RAJ)

Hanwant Singh v. State

2000-08-09

BHAGWATI PRASAD

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jodhpur passed in Sessions Case No. 15/1987 dated 26.8.1991 whereby he convicted the accused appellant under Sections 306 I.PC. and sentenced him to years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. 2. On 9.11.1986 the S.H.O., Police Station, Sardarpura received a report from the Railway Police Station, Jodhpur that on 6.11.1986 at 9.30 A.M. one memo has been received from the Station Master, Bhagat Ki Kothi that a lady and a child had met with an accident from Up M.T. Special to Near Bhagat Ki Kothi Home Signal. The injured child was sent to Railway Hospital and the lady has died. On the basis of the statement of eye-witness Ramchandra a case of suicide was registered and investigated. During the course of investigation it was revealed that the deceased lady was living with the accused appellant having deserted her matrimonial home. Prior to the incident she and the accused went to the police station and levelled allegations against each other and a case under Sections 107 and 151 I.P.C. was registered. The learned trial court has found that it was a case of unnatural death and the death having been caused by unnatural means. The prosecution pleaded for the trial of the accused under Section 306 I.PC. and it has ultimately been done and the accused was convicted under Section 306 I.PC. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that for bringing home an offence under Section 306 I.PC. there has to be evidence on record showing such act having been committed by the accused by virtue of which the deceased was driven to commit suicide. The best evidence produced by the prosecution on record only relates to the fact that there was some misunderstanding between the deceased and the accused appellant and they had gone to the police station. The deceased had deserted her matrimonial home and was living with the appellant. This shows that she was capable of taking hard decisions and living out of the matrimonial bonds with the accused appellant shows her stubbornness also. The deceased had deserted her matrimonial home and was living with the appellant. This shows that she was capable of taking hard decisions and living out of the matrimonial bonds with the accused appellant shows her stubbornness also. That being the position it cannot be said that mere dispute between the appellant and the deceased was not the reason which drove her to commit suicide. He places reliance on a Supreme Court decision rendered in Shri Ram and another reported in 1975(2) S.C.R. 622 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in order to constitute abetment, the a better must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged a better is not enough compliance with the requirements of section 107 I.P.C. In the instant case, except that there was some dispute between the accused and the deceased and they went to the police station and levelled allegations against each other there is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused appellant has intentionally aided or abetted her to commit suicide. That being the position it cannot be held with certainty that the acts committed by the accused appellant were sufficient enough to constitute an offence of abetment and hence it cannot be said that the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. has rightly been held to be made out against the accused to appellant. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor per contra has argued that the lady has reposed confidence in the accused appellant. Having strained relations with her husband, she started living with the accused appellant and the accused appellant took undue advantage of her position and persecuted her and drove her to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the accused appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. It is unfortunate that the lady died an unnatural death. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly held that the accused appellant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 5. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. It is unfortunate that the lady died an unnatural death. Maybe that there were strained relations in between the appellant and the lady but the prosecution has brought no evidence on record which could make out a case wherein there was any intentional act committed by the accused appellant to force the deceased to commit suicide and in the absence of any such evidence mere going to the police station and inviting a case registered under Sections 107 and 151 I.P.C. [Sic. Cr.PC.] cannot be said be a circumstance valid enough to hold the accused appellant had created such a situation whereby the deceased was forced to commit suicide. In this background, it cannot be said that the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In this background, the prosecution case has no merit and cannot be considered to be good enough to bring home the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. against the accused appellant. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal Allowed. *******