Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 175 (JK)

State v. Talib Hussain

2010-04-05

J.P.SINGH

body2010
1. Death of Kaneez Begum on June 27, 2002 in suspicious circumstances led to initiation of proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which culminated in the registration of FIR No.133/2002 at Police Station R.S. Pura. 2. The investigation carried out in the case, found Talib Hussain-respondent responsible for his wife-Kaneez Begums suicide. 3. Final Police Report was, accordingly, laid with the Additional Judicial Magistrate 1st Class R. S. Pura, who committed it to the Sessions Judge, Jammu, where the respondent was tried for offence punishable under Section 306 RPC. 4. Learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has acquitted the respondent disbelieving the prosecution witnesses for lack of corroboration and failure of the prosecution to produce the Investigating Police Officer in the case to explain the delayed recording of the statements of witnesses during the investigation of the case additionally finding the prosecution evidence `hear-say in character. 5. Mr. Gagan Basotra, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that the Trial Court had recorded the acquittal erroneously construing non-production of the Investigating Police Officer, as weakness of the prosecution which course, according to the learned counsel, was impermissible, for the prosecution case, had to be judged on its own merit regardless of the fact that the Investigating Police Officer had not been produced in the case, which according to the learned Counsel, was not fatal. He further submitted that the prosecution having proved its case to the hilt, the respondent was liable to be convicted and punished for compelling his wife to commit suicide. 6. Per Contra, Mr. Vishal Sharma, respondents learned counsel submitted that the prosecution had failed to lead evidence to prove such facts, events or circumstances, on the basis whereof, it could be said that the respondent had instigated or intentionally aided, by any of his act(s) or omission to lead his wife to commit suicide. According to the learned Counsel, the trial Courts judgment to acquit the respondent was un-exceptional as no sustainable evidence had been produced by the prosecution to justify his conviction. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the records and the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. The prosecution had not produced any witness during the trial of the Case who would testify to any hostile treatment of the respondent viz-a-viz his wife during their marital relationship of about eight years. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, gone through the records and the judgment of the Trial Court. 7. The prosecution had not produced any witness during the trial of the Case who would testify to any hostile treatment of the respondent viz-a-viz his wife during their marital relationship of about eight years. Its evidence, on the other hand, indicates about their cordial relationship except for the last three months and that too because of the respondents alleged illicit relationship with some other woman, which the deceased is stated to have been objecting to. What happened in these three months too, has remained a mystery, in that, the prosecution has not led any evidence to indicate any event or circumstance, on the basis whereof, any act of instigation or aiding by the respondent, may be construed to have led his wife to commit suicide. 8. The evidence of PW-Safiya Begum, the younger sister of the deceased and PW-Noor Begum., her mother, on which the State relies heavily to seek respondents conviction, in the absence of any other direct or indirect evidence of the State-respondent, is only `hear-say, which cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise, the deceaseds mothers statement that she had been informed by her daughter that the deceased had been beaten by her husband in the night before the date of her death, does not get support from PW-Safiya Begums statement who had infact received the telephone call from the deceased, a day before the occurrence. The incident of the respondents alleged beating his wife before her death, as stated by PW-Noor Begum, could not have thus been relied upon, firstly because of its being `hear-say in character and secondly because it did not receive corroboration from Safiya Begums statement. 9. The story of respondents beating his wife, a day before her death as projected by the witnesses, does not get support from the Post Mortem Examination of the deceased which does not indicate any type of injury, whatsoever, on her body. 10. In order to succeed in a prosecution for commission of offence punishable under section 306 R.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove instances, events, factors and the like by evidence, be it circumstantial or otherwise to prove the ingredients of section 107 RPC to seek conviction under section 306 RPC. 11. 10. In order to succeed in a prosecution for commission of offence punishable under section 306 R.P.C., the prosecution is required to prove instances, events, factors and the like by evidence, be it circumstantial or otherwise to prove the ingredients of section 107 RPC to seek conviction under section 306 RPC. 11. The evidence lead in the present case does not even hint at the proof of the ingredients contemplated by Section 107 R.P.C. 12. The incriminating circumstances put to the accused for his explanation under section 342 Cr.P.C., too, indicate that no such circumstance contemplating proof of the ingredients of section 107 R.P.C. had been put to the respondent for his explanation. The whole of the prosecution had rather proceeded on the premise that as the respondent was allegedly having illicit relationship with someone, so fed up therewith, the deceased had committed suicide. Such allegation, in my opinion, would not attract the provisions of section 306 R.P.C., in the absence of any overt act, leading to the proof of the ingredients of section 107 R.P.C. 13. The prosecution has not lead any evidence to prove respondents illicit relationship with any other woman. 14. For all what has been said above, the conclusion reached at by the Trial Court in finding the respondent not guilty of offence punishable under section 306 R.P.C. for lack of requisite, admissible and legal evidence in the case cannot, thus be faulted. 15. Findings no merit in the contention raised by the appellants Counsel, the States acquittal Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.