Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 313 (UTT)

Kishan Chandra Pant v. State

2005-08-01

B.S.VERMA, IRSHAD HUSSAIN

body2005
JUDGMENT Irshad Hussain, J. 1. Both these accused Smt. Nirmala Pant and Kishan Chandra Pant, mother and son were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/109, I.P.C. and R.I. for three years under Section 498A, I.P.C. per judgment dated 28.11.1998 passed by then Sessions Judge, Almora in sessions Trial No. 16/1992. Khila Nand Pant was acquitted in the case. 2. Smt. Manju Pant deceased of the case was the wife of accused Kishan Chandra Pant. They were married in the year 1984. The couple was residing in their house in Mohalla Ranidahra Road, Almora along with accused Smt. Nirmala Pant and Khila Nand Pant, the mother and father of the husband. The couple have school going son and a daughter. 3. According to the prosecution Mr. Harish Chandra Pant, Advocate (PW 3) gave telephonic message to Police, P.S. Almora in the morning of 21.2.1991 that daughter-in-law of Khila Nand Pant had committed suicide by hanging in her marital home. This information was recorded in the general diary of the police station. Sub-Inspector Arvind Dangwal (P.W. 7) thereafter reached the house of the incident and held inquest on the dead body of Smt. Manju Pant and prepared inquest report, Ext. Ka. 2. Panch witnesses of the inquest were accused Kishan Chandra Pant, accused Khila Nand Pant, Kailash Chandra Joshi (P.W. 2) maternal uncle of the deceased, Navin Chandra Joshi (P.W. 1) maternal grand father of the deceased and Charu Chandra Pant a neighbour of the accused. The dead body was found lying on the floor of the room by the Investigating Officer. He was told by accused Smt. Nirmala Pant that when she returned to the house from outside at about 6 p.m. on 20.2.1991 her daughter Ms. Hema Joshi told that Bhabhi (Smt. Manju Pant deceased) is not seen there in the house and her room is closed. On this query accused Smt. Nirmala Pant stated to have opened the room of the deceased and to her surprise she found that the daughter-in-law had herself hanged by the peg of the room by using Saree-fall as a rope to have it wrapped round the neck with a knot. Her body was hanging half prostrate on floor with her legs bent inwards. Her body was hanging half prostrate on floor with her legs bent inwards. The accused with an intention that the daughter-in-law may be saved brought her down and put her on the cot and started massaging the head with oil. The dead body of the daughter-in-law was at that time warm. The accused then called her neighbour to see as to what had happened to the dauthter-in-law and by the time her neighbour could reach there it had been confirmed that the daughter-in-law had already breathed her last. At that time Khila Nand, the father-in-law of the deceased was reading a newspaper in his room. 4. Khila Nand Pant also gave similar version to the Investigating Officer and whereas the deceased's husband accused Kishan Chandra Pant told that when he returned to his house at about 7 p.m. on 20.2.1991 he came to know that his wife was no more. 5. After inquest the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was performed the same day, that is, 21.2.1991 at 3 p.m. by Dr. Jagdish Durgapal (P. W. 6) and post-mortem report, Ext. Ka. 4 was prepared. Dr. M.S. Aggarwal was also present when autopsy was held. Ante mortem injuries detected were as follows: 1. Ligature mark present above the thyroid cartilage between larynx and chin. Mark was obliquely directed upwards in the line of lower jaw and interrupted at the back of neck. The knot mark was present over the right side of the neck at the mastoid process. The mark was superficial and broad. The subcutaneous tissues under the ligature mark were white and glistering. Trachea red and congested. The width of ligature mark was 1 cm. 2. Abraded contusion in an area of 5cm x 1cm over inner aspect of left thigh. On internal examination front neck muscles were found ruptured. Pleura, larynx, lungs and pericardia were congested. Right chamber of heart was full of blood whereas left chamber was empty. There was about 300 millilitre fluid in the stomach. 6. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeons, the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging about one day ago. 7. On 21.2.1991 Kailash Chandra Joshi ( P.W. 2) who was one of the panch witnesses, delivered a written report, Ext. Ka. 1 at the police station at 4.15 p.m. and F.I.R., Ext. 6. In the opinion of the Autopsy Surgeons, the death was caused due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging about one day ago. 7. On 21.2.1991 Kailash Chandra Joshi ( P.W. 2) who was one of the panch witnesses, delivered a written report, Ext. Ka. 1 at the police station at 4.15 p.m. and F.I.R., Ext. Ka 5 was then drawn on its basis and case under Sections 304B/201, I.P.C. was registered against these accused and Khila Nand Pant. Informant Kailash Chandra Joshi the maternal uncle of the deceased was employed at M/s. Nariman Petrol Pump, Almora and it was stated in the FIR that the deceased used to make complaints to the informant about the ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law by depriving her of meal continuously for three days at a time altogether and to force her to remain hungry besides giving her beating. She also used to tell that the accused gave a threat to kill her so that her husband may marry again with another lady. Informant further alleged that he was given information about the death of his niece at about 10 a.m. on 21.2.1991 by Navin Chandra Joshi (P.W. 1) and that the information was also not given to this witness and parents of the deceased and her death was kept secret. On account of this informant suspected that his niece had in fact been murdered and the incident was being given colour of suicide. 8. The investigation was already on in the matter and after the said F.I.R. the Investigating Officer inspected the scene of the incident and prepared site plan, Ext. Ka. 7, recorded the statements of the witnesses and attached Saree-fall utilized by the deceased for alleged hanging, vide memo, Ext. Ka. 8. On 5.3.1991 the investigation of the case was taken up by the second Investigating Officer S.I. D.P. Sharma who recorded the statements of other witnesses and on completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet, Ext. Ka. 9 against these accused and Khila Nand Pant on 18.4.1991. 9. The accused charge-sheeted were committed to Court of Session on 21.5.1992 by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora and all the three faced trial. Ka. 9 against these accused and Khila Nand Pant on 18.4.1991. 9. The accused charge-sheeted were committed to Court of Session on 21.5.1992 by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora and all the three faced trial. On 6.8.1992 the then Sessions Judge, Almora framed charges against the accused under Sections 306/34 and 498A, I.P.C. During the trial in order to bring home guilt to the accused prosecution relied upon the evidence of seven witnesses namely Navin Chandra Joshi (P.W. 1), Kailash Chandra Joshi (PW 2), Harish Chandra Pant, Advocate ( P.W. 3), Suresh Chandra Tiwari (P.W. 4), Pankaj Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 5), Dr. Jagdish Durgapal (P.W. 6) and S.I. Arvind Dangwal (P.W. 7). No evidence was adduced in defence. After close of the evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 29.4.1998. Accused pleaded not guilty and urged that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused Kishan Chandra Pant gave out that the parents of the deceased were sent letter and telegram and information of the death was also given to the maternal uncle of the deceased but maternal uncle was not available at his house. According to him deceased was mentally sick and was getting treatment for the last about one and a half years. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard arguments in the trial and posted it for delivery of judgment on 9.6.1998. On this date the judgment was not delivered but an order was passed therefore the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to frame alternative charge under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and gave opportunity to recall and re-examine the witnesses in support of the charge so framed. In pursuance thereof two witnesses Dr. Jagdish Chandra Durgapal and S.I. Arvind Dangwal, the Investigating Officer of the case were recalled. They were however numbered as P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 respectively by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused were again examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they again pleaded not guilty and stated that the witnesses gave false evidence against them. 10. They were however numbered as P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 respectively by the learned Sessions Judge. The accused were again examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and they again pleaded not guilty and stated that the witnesses gave false evidence against them. 10. Learned Sessions Judge on his appreciation of the evidence on record, the facts, and circumstances of the case came to the conclusions that the husband accused Kishan Chandra Pant used to beat the deceased very often and to burn her by burning cigarette and the mother-in-law Smt. Nirmala Pant had not only abused the deceased many a time but had said that the victim will be killed and her son will be married with another lady; that the harassment and cruelty went up to the extent that accused Smt. Nirmala Pant had not given the deceased two square meals and has, therefore, ill-treated her daughter-in-law to the maximum extent possible; that despite the claim that the deceased was ill no evidence has been given regarding her illness or treatment and that as such the mother-in-law and the husband were solely responsible for the murder and the mother had abetted the son for committing the murder. Learned Sessions Judge also inferred that these accused wanted to get rid of the deceased and they have committed her murder and thereafter by putting Saree-fall they wanted to give it a colour of suicide which was not possible at all in the face of the factual aspects and circumstances of the case. The father-in-law Khila Nand was found to have had no role in the ill-treatment and harassment of the deceased and he was, therefore, given benefit of doubt and whereas the two accused before us were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 11. Mr. P.S. Adhikari, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused persuasively argued that there was no acceptable evidence on record to indicate that Smt. Manju deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has drawn inference to this effect merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and on placing implicit reliance on the evidence of the relatives of the deceased which was otherwise highly shaky and discrepant and not corroborated by any circumstance or independent evidence. Learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the inference was also incorrectly drawn that the deceased was murdered and it was given the colour of suicide by the accused by placing a Saree-fall on the peg of the room of the deceased and to support the inference the otherwise reliable medical evidence was illegally discarded. In the view of the learned Senior Advocate the alternative charge under Section 302 read with Section 109, C.P.C. was also illegally framed in the case and there being no credible evidence on record the accused could not have been held guilty and convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 109 and 498A, I.P.C. 12. As against this, learned A.G.A. supported the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and argued that the alternative charge was rightly framed in view of the allegations of the FIR and that the facts and circumstances borne out of the evidence were properly appraised and considered to convict both the accused. 13. As is evident there was no direct evidence and the case merely rests on circumstantial evidence. At the outset it need to be stated that it was not a case of dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code as it was not claimed that the death was caused within seven years of marriage. The marriage of Smt. Manju Pant deceased and accused Kishan Chandra Pant was solemnized in the year 1984 and the wife breathed her last on 20.2.1991. Even though the prosecution has not claimed, as is evident from the F.I.R. and the evidence of the witnesses, that the death took place within seven years from the date of the marriage but the learned Sessions Judge opined that the death of the deceased was within seven years in paragraph 18 of the judgment. However, there being no allegation of any demand of dowry the learned Sessions Judge later on in paragraph No. 31 of the judgment concluded that this was neither a case of dowry death nor a case of suicide but it was a clear case of murder. 14. The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused could have been convicted of the offence of murder. 15. 14. The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused could have been convicted of the offence of murder. 15. According to the evidence Smt. Maju Pant committed suicide at about 6 p.m. on 20.2.1991 by hanging herself by neck by the peg of her room with the aid of Saree-fall which was used to make out a knot around the neck and the same having been tied to the peg fixed on the wall of the room. When the room was opened by the mother-in-law Smt. Nirmala Pant the body of the victim was warm and as stated to by the mother-in-law at the time of the inquest, the victim was brought down on the cot by removing the Saree-fall from the neck and her head was also massaged. The mother-in-law then intended to call a lady neighbour to see as to how it happened and before the neighbour could reach there the victim had breathed her last. The medical evidence on record clearly refers to such ante mortem injury as is clearly sustained due to hanging which results in asphyxia and ultimate death of the suicide victim. Having found such injury the Autopsy Surgeons were of the opinion that the death of Smt. Maju Pant was caused due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The learned Sessions Judge however differed with this expert opinion and by referring to the attending circumstances and factual aspects drawn an inference that Smt. Manju Pant could not have hanged herself in the manner suggested. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge was that as noted in the inquest report Smt. Manju had a height of 5 feet 5 inches and the peg of the room, as shown in the site plan, Ext. Ka. 7, was at a height of 1 metre 74 centimetres, meaning thereby that it was at the height of 5 feet 9/2 inches, the deceased would not have hanged herself from such short height, particularly when few inches, say about 5 inches, were to be set apart as a distance between the knot on the peg and the knot of the Saree-fall on the neck to facilitate hanging. The learned Sessions Judge by referring to the earliest version given by accused Smt. Nirmala Pant, the mother-in-law to the Investigating Officer at the time of the holding of the inquest on the dead body also observed that it was not at all probable that if the suicide was to be committed from such short height of the peg of the room the deceased would not have been found lying there in prostrate posture in the sense that her legs were bent inwards and that when the victim's body was touching the floor of the room the theory of suicide stand ruled out. The actual words spoken to by this accused to the Investigating Officer "Hindi matter omitted" were also taken in support of the inference by the learned Sessions Judge. Having considered the factual aspects of the case we are not inclined to accept the reasoning recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. The above words spoken to by the accused at the first available opportunity to the Investigating Officer make it obvious that the body posture of the deceased in prostrate position and the legs, in fact, bent inwards and touching the floor of the room was on account of the peg of the room not at much height and the same having been utilized for the hanging of the body to commit the suicide by the victim. Had the peg been on a greater height then naturally the deceased would have been found fully hanging and her legs being above the floor of the room. Since the peg was not fixed at such a height the victim clearly appears to have committed the suicide by hanging and thus had her body prostrated to put force and pressure on the neck while the Saree-fall was tied around the neck and it was also tied on the peg. The learned Sessions Judge then observed that there was neither pulling of the neck nor froth/liquid was seen coming out from the mouth nor the tongue was protruding outside the mouth and absence of these characteristics also militate against the claim that suicide was committed by the victim. The learned Sessions Judge then observed that there was neither pulling of the neck nor froth/liquid was seen coming out from the mouth nor the tongue was protruding outside the mouth and absence of these characteristics also militate against the claim that suicide was committed by the victim. In the face of the medical evidence that there was conspicuous ligature mark present over the thyroid cartilage and when front muscles of neck were found ruptured the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge were of no consequence, particularly when the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Jagdish Durgapal (P.W. 6) does not at all indicate that it was not a case of asphyxia as a result of hanging by neck. In other words the learned Sessions Judge was also not justified to displace the definite medical evidence in regard to the nature of the injury and cause of the death. 16. In the inquest report, Ext. Ka. 2 the position of the dead body of Smt. Maju was noted by the Investigating Officer. The mouth was found closed, eyes were half opened and both hands were on the stomach, one hand above the other and referring to this posture of the dead body, the learned Sessions Judge also drew inference that it was not a case of suicide because in case of suicide both the hands were to remain separate. As was the case here the deceased was brought down on the cot by the mother-in-law on finding her body warm and the head of the deceased was also massaged with oil before it was confirmed that the deceased had, in fact, already breathed her last. The body being warm and not much time had elapsed from the suicide committed by the deceased and if her hands were on the stomach while lying there in the house after being brought down on the cot it would not suggest that it could not have been a case of suicide. Further, accused Kishan Chandra Pant told the Investigating Officer at the time of the inquest that when he returned to the house at about 7 p.m. his wife had already died. Further, accused Kishan Chandra Pant told the Investigating Officer at the time of the inquest that when he returned to the house at about 7 p.m. his wife had already died. At the time of the incident the father-in-law Khila Nand Pant was there in the house besides the mother-in-law and the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the father-in-law of the charges levelled against him whereas along with the mother-in-law the husband had been held guilty of committing the murder of the deceased. There is absolutely no inkling from the evidence of the prosecution that the husband accused Kishan Chandra Pant was inside the house when his wife committed suicide at about 6 p.m. on 20.2.1991. Even the learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding to this effect and although the father-in-law had been held not guilty the learned Sessions Judge strangely recorded in paragraph 22 of the judgment the following finding: ...and this clearly appears that the accused Kishan Chandra Pant entered the room and he strangulated her either with his palm or by using the Saree-fall from the front side and he had put his leg on the left leg of the deceased, which had received the abraded contusion on the thigh, meaning thereby that she could not move as the accused Kishan Chandra has kept his one leg on the left thigh of the deceased and had kept the other leg on the stomach, which she tried to save by putting the hands and thereafter he had strangulated either with his palm or with the Saree-fall from the front side and this is why there was no ligature mark around and back of the neck. Thus, from the evidence on record it is clearly made out that it is a case of murder and not of suicide. 17. In the face of the factual aspects of the case, the medical evidence on record which do not indicate that the abraded contusion on the inner aspect of the thigh was sustained within 24 hours, the prostrate posture of the deceased while hanging by the peg in our view clearly indicate that the above reasoning and findings of the learned Sessions Judge were based on surmises and conjectures and the conclusion drawn that it was a case of murder was based on erroneous inferences. The learned Sessions Judge also adverted to a decision of the Apex Court in support of his inference that the accused wanted to get rid of the deceased in order to facilitate second marriage of one of the accused Kishan Chandra Pant with another lady and they have committed murder, and thereafter just by putting Saree-fall they wanted to give it the shape of suicide. The decision cited pertain to the case of Virbhan Singh v. State of U.P. 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 781. Having gone through the reported decision we have no hesitation in saying that the learned Sessions by ignoring the actual facts of the reported case erroneously drawn parallel to the facts of the present case to support his conclusion. The reason being that the deceased wife of the reported case was found to have sustained ante-mortem fracture of ribs, peritoneum was deeply congested, abdominal cavity was full of blood, there was a big tear of 6 inches in the stomach, the abdominal wall was congested, there was a lacerated wound 3" x 1/2" in the left of lobe of the lever, both the kidneys were congested and decomposed and ligature mark 8cm x 1/2 cm on the neck and the autopsy surgeon stated categorically that in view of the ante mortem injuries found there was little possibility of the deceased hanging herself. As stated there can be no gainsaying that in the present case there was positive and categorical statement of the autopsy surgeons that it was a case of suicide by hanging and, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion to observe that the reported decision is applicable to the facts of the present case with all force. We, therefore, find no cogent reason to subscribe to the view of the learned Sessions Judge that Smt. Manju Pant did not commit suicide but her murder was committed by the accused. In other words it was a case of suicide committed in the evening of 20.2.1991. 18. We, therefore, find no cogent reason to subscribe to the view of the learned Sessions Judge that Smt. Manju Pant did not commit suicide but her murder was committed by the accused. In other words it was a case of suicide committed in the evening of 20.2.1991. 18. The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the accused could be convicted for the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. After investigation charge-sheet against these accused and Khila Nand Pant was filed for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C., in view of the evidence collected in support of the allegations of the FIR that Smt. Manju Pant deceased used to be subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law and was even given threat of death so that her husband may marry again with another lady. In other words the allegations were that the accused by their conduct and behaviour abetted suicide committed by Smt. Manju Pant. Section 107, I.P.C. defines abetment to mean that "a person abets the doing of a thing if he firstly, instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly, engages that 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 intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." Considering the allegations of ill-treatment and cruelty we have to consider the evidence of the prosecution to see as to whether or not the ingredients of the abetment are attracted to the facts of the case so as to saddle the responsibility on these accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 306, I.P.C. and also to see as to whether the accused were rightly convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge. It need to be stated here that there being absolutely no evidence to establish that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not be invoked to find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. 19. It need to be stated here that there being absolutely no evidence to establish that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not be invoked to find the accused guilty of the offence under Section 306, I.P.C. 19. At the outset it need to be stated that for the purposes of Section 498A, I.P.C. "cruelty" means: (a) any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 20. Since there was no allegation of any dowry demand offence connected with harassment of the deceased Clause (b) of the explanation of Section 498A, I.P.C. has no application here and in view of the allegation that the deceased was used to be ill-treated as stated in the FIR we are concerned with Clause (a) of the explanation and we are required to look in to all the circumstances of the case to consider whether the deceased was treated with cruelty and further to consider as to whether the alleged cruelty was of such a nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit the suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The learned Sessions Judge considered the evidence of P. W. 2 Kailash Chandra Joshi, P.W. 4, Chandra Sekhar Tiwari and PW 5 Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, the maternal uncle, the paternal uncle, and real brother of the deceased in regard to the allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment and on the appreciation of their evidence came to the conclusion that accused Kishan Chandra Pant, the husband used to beat the deceased very often and to burn the deceased with burning cigarettes and accused Smt. Nirmala Pant the mother-in-law had not only abused the deceased many a time but had said that she will be killed and her son will be married with other lady and further that the extremity of the harassment and cruelty was that the said accused had not given her two square meals and has, therefore, ill-treated and harassed her to the maximum extent possible. Having regard to the evidence on record and circumstances of the case we are inclined to accept the argument of the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused that the conclusions of the learned Sessions Judge were based on erroneous inferences drawn on unproved facts and placing reliance on statements of interested witnesses whose evidence has not stood the test of cross- examination. The reasons being that P. W. 2, Kailash Chandra Joshi despite being close relation of the deceased and residing permanently in the town of Almora itself has admittedly never complained to the accused that they were subjecting his niece to ill -treatment and cruelty in the manner and mode as alleged in the report, Ext. Ka. I lodged by him and also stated to in his evidence and his conduct itself indicate that he was not a reliable witness. The marriage of the deceased with accused Kishan Chandra Pant took place in the year 1984 and not making complaint of such alleged ill-treatment even once itself belie the claim of the witness. This apart, the witness stated that the deceased had told him only on one or two occasions that the husband was used to give her burns by cigarette while under intoxication and further the deceased used to tell him that her mother-in-law gave her threat of death so as to arrange second marriage of the son. The deceased also alleged to have told him that she was not even provided with two square meals by the accused. The deceased also alleged to have told him that she was not even provided with two square meals by the accused. He was confronted with his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. in which he merely gave out that his niece (the deceased) told him that the accused gave her ill-treatment and she did not disclose the name of any particular person who was ill-treating her. It is thus obvious that the witness made a conspicuous improvement in the evidence as regards the allegations against the accused merely to give a colour of truthfulness to his claim now made and also in order to support the allegations of his F.I.R. If the accused Kishan Chandra Pant was used to give body burns to the deceased by burning cigarette at least some signs of burns would have been detected at the time of the post-mortem examination of the dead body and in the absence thereof we see no hesitation in saying that the false claim was made by the witness with a view to give support to the allegations made in the FIR. ft is also of significance that the witness has not even once wrote a letter to the parents of the deceased about the alleged ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused. If the deceased was making complaint to him at least a single letter would have been sent by him to her parents. This conduct of the witness, further indicate that there is no grain of truth in the claim that the deceased was used to visit him and used to tell him about her harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the accused. We fail to understand as to how the evidence of this witness could have been relied upon to prove the allegations of the FIR and to sustain the claim that the deceased used to be subjected to cruelty by the accused. 21. P.W. 4, Suresh Chandra Tiwari, the paternal uncle of the deceased reside in Madhya Pradesh where the parents of the deceased are also residing. After marriage in the year 1984 deceased met the witness only on two or three occasions as and when she visited there in Madhya Pradesh and according to the witness the deceased told him that the accused give her beating and treat her indecently. After marriage in the year 1984 deceased met the witness only on two or three occasions as and when she visited there in Madhya Pradesh and according to the witness the deceased told him that the accused give her beating and treat her indecently. About eight months before the incident also the deceased visited Madhya Pradesh with her husband and according to the witness the husband of the deceased became unconscious due to excessive intoxication and this also had the effect of making the deceased unconscious. The witness was confronted with his earlier statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and he admitted that his statement does not contain such allegations of ill-treatment of his niece by the accused. The incident of the husband of the decease getting unconscious due to excessive intoxication also do not find place in the earlier statement. He had never received any letter from the deceased prior to the incident complaining of ill-treatment by the accused. Considering the entire statement of the witness it can safely be said that his evidence was nil in a essence as regards the allegation of cruelty and harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused and we are at a loss to understand as to how the evidence of this witness could be taken to substantiate the allegation of the prosecution. In fact the marked improvement in the evidence in Court warrants rejection of the evidence of this witness also and his evidence could not have been utilized towards proof of the case of the prosecution. 22. P.W. 5, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, the real brother of the deceased also tried to prove the allegation of cruelty and ill-treatment of his sister at the hands of the accused but his cross-examination also exposed his unreliability as regards the allegations against the accused. In examination-in-chief he made repetition of the allegations stated earlier beside claiming that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) of his sister made two or three attempts to set ablaze his sister by pouring kerosene oil on her and for this reason his sister used to show her unwillingness to go back to the house of her husband and in-laws. In examination-in-chief he made repetition of the allegations stated earlier beside claiming that the mother-in-law and sister-in-law (Nanad) of his sister made two or three attempts to set ablaze his sister by pouring kerosene oil on her and for this reason his sister used to show her unwillingness to go back to the house of her husband and in-laws. The witness and other family members however used to prevail upon the deceased to go back to the house of the accused on the assurance that the accused will be made to understand the things and to treat her nicely. The falsity of the prosecution allegations stand exposed very well from the evidence of this witness also because in making a very marked improvement in the evidence he even went to allege that the accused made two or three attempts to burn his sister to death. 23. We could not believe that despite two or three attempts to eliminate the deceased by setting her ablaze the witness or his parents would not have even once made a complaint to the police to set the things right and to give a lesson to the accused. In our view the evidence of the witness was full of blatant lies and a futile attempt was made to support the false allegations of the F.I.R. The witness even went on to say that his sister was also harassed in connection with dowry which allegation was not made earlier and a further improvement was made in regard to the allegations against the accused. According to the witness his sister visited Madhya Pradesh only on four occasions after 1984, the year of her marriage. Since deceased had visited her parents' house only on four occasions during this long period, this itself was indicative of the fact that she was not meted out ill-treatment by the accused and it appears that she was not troubled while living with her husband and other family members in her marital home at Almora. The witness then gave out that his sister used to send letters to the parents and uncle complaining of the cruel treatment given to her by the accused. Not a single such letter was produced on record and letter, Ext. Ka. 3, brought on record could not be taken to prove such an allegation. The witness then gave out that his sister used to send letters to the parents and uncle complaining of the cruel treatment given to her by the accused. Not a single such letter was produced on record and letter, Ext. Ka. 3, brought on record could not be taken to prove such an allegation. The letter admittedly neither contains any date of dispatch nor the name of the person who sent it to the brother of the deceased. Moreover, the two pieces of two different inland letters have been pasted together to show that one inland letter was received by the brother of the deceased and by its physical appearance this appears to be a manufactured document which could not at all be taken to corroborate any of the allegations of the prosecution. The witness was also confronted with his earlier statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and this fact was brought on record that such claims were not made at that time by the witness. This aspect further strongly militate against the credibility of the witness. 24. From above it is obvious that the learned Sessions Judge was not at all justified to place any reliance whatsoever on the evidence of these witnesses and in fact the learned Sessions Judge came to a wrong conclusion that deceased Smt. Manju Pant was used to be ill-treated and was subjected to cruelty by the accused. The accused, therefore, could not have been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C. 25. Referring to the fact that the accused did not adduce any evidence of illness, etc. of the deceased learned Sessions Judge has drawn the inference that the deceased was not suffering from any illness and that her mental equilibrium was naturally disturbed due to ill-treatments meted out to her by the accused. We are not convinced that the inference against the accused could have been drawn by reason of not adducing any evidence in defence. It is well settled that it is not necessary for the defence to prove its case, and it is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, which is sufficient to enable the Court to reject the prosecution version. It is well settled that it is not necessary for the defence to prove its case, and it is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case, which is sufficient to enable the Court to reject the prosecution version. There can be no doubt that the defence has in this case claimed the said goal and even otherwise the prosecution witness Sri Harish Pant ( P.W. 3) gave out that Smt. Manju deceased used to remain sick of mental imbalance and had tendency to remain outside the house while roaming here and there, without any purpose. Testimony of Kailash Chandra Joshi ( P.W. 2) also indicate that the deceased had shown abnormal turnout by coming out of the house without wearing sandals or shoes right up to the market where the witness was employed at Petrol Pump. Even Suresh Chandra Tiwari ( P.W. 4) and Pankaj Kumar Tiwari (P.W. 5) gave out that when Smt. Manju deceased visited Madhya Pradesh she became unconscious when her husband had taken liquor and was under intoxication. These instances can safely be taken to suggest that deceased was not fully normal mentally or she was a highly emotional and temperamentally very sensitive lady. Such lady may, on a mere rush of blood, take any extreme steps or decision oblivious of its consequences. 26. In regard to the conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident of suicide, it need to be stated that accused though did not lodge any report with the police, it is important to mention that there is statement of the witness Harish Chandra Pant (P.W. 3) that Khila Nand Pant, the father-in-law of the deceased told him on 20.2.1991 itself about the incident and asked him to go to the police station to report the matter. The witness, however, gave telephonic message to the police at about 6-6.30 p.m. the same day. He further stated that on 21.2.1991 Khila Nand Pant came to him at about 6 a.m. and then he again made a telephone to the police station, where after the police reached the house of the deceased. The evidence of the prosecution itself shows that the accused have not intended to suppress the incident or for any ulterior motive have not gone to the police station to report the matter. The evidence of the prosecution itself shows that the accused have not intended to suppress the incident or for any ulterior motive have not gone to the police station to report the matter. Therefore, any inference of even guilty conscience of the accused cannot be drawn from the conduct of the accused. 27. Having regard to the facts of the case and evidence on record we are also of the firm view that the deceased Smt. Manju Pant was not driven to commit suicide by any cruelty and harassment at the hands of the accused and in all probability the irresistible conclusion is that the deceased and she alone and none else was responsible for her suicidal death. 28. In the result this appeal succeeds and is to be allowed. Appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment dated 28.11.1998 is set aside. The accused Kishan Chandra Pant and Smt. Nirmala Pant are held not guilty and acquitted of charges under Sections 302/104/306/498A, I.P.C. They are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 29. Let the record be sent back to the Court concerned.