Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2072 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Ranjeet Ram

2012-10-04

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the appellant State and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the judgment. 2. Instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 27.7.1988 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions Case No. 11/1987 whereby the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondents from the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code 3. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that Ravi Das S/o respondents No. 1 and 2 and brother of respondent No. 3 was married to Shashibala on 1.5.1985. Shashibala unfortunately committed suicide in her marital home on 26.12.1985. The report of the incident was filed by the respondent No. 2 with the Circle Inspector concerned on 27.12.1985. Thereafter investigation was commenced. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to file a charge-sheet against the respondents for the offences under Section 306 Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bikaner from where the same was transferred to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Bikaner for trial. On charges being framed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the accused denied the same and claimed trial. Twenty witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. The accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code denied the case of the prosecution and examined two witnesses in support of their case. The trial Judge at the conclusion of the trial proceeded to acquit the respondents from the charges. As such the instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the acquittal of the respondents. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the deceased was married with Ravi Das the son of the respondents No. 1 and 2 just six months before the date of occurrence and us such since the deceased has met with an unnatural death at the matrimonial home in such a short span of time from her marriage, the burden of proving that the death was not as a result of any abetment given by the accused lay on the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor states on the strength of statements of PW-11 Narayani Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-13 Dinesh Kumar and PW-16 Suresh Kumar, brothers of the deceased, prosecution has clearly established the fact that the accused made unreasonable demands from the deceased and us the deceased was not agreeable to the such demands and, therefore, she committed suicide. He, therefore, prays that the acquittal of the respondents as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is absolutely unfounded and not based on valid reasons and the appeal should be accepted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in this case the husband of the deceased viz. Ravi Das has not been arrayed as accused by the prosecution. Pointing out the statement of Narayani Devi, the mother of the deceased, learned counsel submits that the highest case as set up by Narayani Devi in her statement is (hat the accused used to force Shashibala for taking loan and for opening a tailoring shop and a school but Shashibala was not agreeable to the said proposal, and therefore, she committed suicide. Learned counsel submits that Narayani Devi was examined during the course of investigation and in her statement Ex.D-2 she has made no allegation whatsoever regarding deceased having been treated with cruelty by the respondents. Learned counsel further pointed out to the letters written by the deceased being Ex.D-3 and D-4 wherein the deceased has made no mention about cruelty having been meted out by any of the respondents. He submits that the letters were written by the deceased in November and December, 1985 and as such the same are virtually statements of the deceased soon before her death and since in these letters there is no allegation of cruelty having been meted out to the deceased by the respondents, acquittal of the respondents does not call for any interference. He has also referred to the statement of PW-12 Sushma, sister of the deceased wherein also no specific allegation of cruelty has been levelled against the accused. He referred to the cross-examination of the said witness wherein the witness admitted that the letters Ex.D-3 and D-4 were written by the deceased. He has also referred to the statement of PW-12 Sushma, sister of the deceased wherein also no specific allegation of cruelty has been levelled against the accused. He referred to the cross-examination of the said witness wherein the witness admitted that the letters Ex.D-3 and D-4 were written by the deceased. He has also referred to the portion of the cross-examination of the said witness wherein she was confronted with her earlier statements Ex.D-5 and D-6 and in such statement she levelled no allegation of cruelty against the respondents. He, therefore, submits that ex facie the learned trial Judge was absolutely justified in acquitting the respondents from the charge. 6. Upon having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the record of the case, it is apparent' that though the deceased has met with an unfortunate suicidal death within a period oi 8 months from the marriage but by that fact alone it cannot be assumed that she was instigated by the accused for committing suicide. For the purpose of holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code there has to be some evidence on the record by which the Court can reach to a conclusion that the accused abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Though it is true that by virtue of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has the aid of presumption available to it for the purpose of holding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code but such presumption would be available only for the benefit of prosecution if it proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty before her death. The cruelty should be as has been defined in Section 498A. As is apparent from the discussion made herein above there is no charge framed under Section 498A against the accused in this case. From the evidence of the prosecution which has been discussed above, it is apparent that during the course of investigation, the principal witnesses of the prosecution did not level any allegation of cruelty against the accused. As is apparent from the discussion made herein above there is no charge framed under Section 498A against the accused in this case. From the evidence of the prosecution which has been discussed above, it is apparent that during the course of investigation, the principal witnesses of the prosecution did not level any allegation of cruelty against the accused. A slight reference was made to the allege act of the accused regarding asking the deceased to take a loan but that by itself cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or an act of demand of dowry the law is settled that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible then normally the acquittal as recorded by the trial Court should not be interfered with. To interfere in the well reasoned judgment of acquittal after nearly 27 years of incident would be nothing short of travesty of justice. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion, that the trial Judge was totally justified in harming at a conclusion that the accused were not guilty for the offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code for having abetted the deceased to commit suicide.In view of the above discussion, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******