Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1151 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-03

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 30.5.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' imprisonment. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was married to Smt. Manju in the year 1980. Smt. Manju committed suicide at her matrimonial home on 28.3.1994 by hanging herself from a noose. The appellant was working as a teacher in the Government School and after coming back from the school, he found that the door of his house was closed from inside and no sound was coming from therein. On seeing inside the room through a lattice, it was seen that Manju was hanging from a nose tied to the wooden support of the ceiling. He immediately rushed back to his school and called his Principal etc. who reached the scene of occurrence and thereafter the appellant gave an oral report at Police Station Bhesrodgarh about his wife having committed suicide. On this report proceeding No. 2/1994 was initiated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The police officers as well as the Executive Magistrate reached the scene of occurrence. The body of Manju was taken down and thereafter subjected to postmortem and it was found that she had committed suicide by hanging. 3. The S.H.O. Bhesrodgarh registered an F.I.R. No. 23/1994 against the appellant at the Police Station on 4.4.1994 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. based on the enquiry made from the maternal relatives of the deceased. At the conclusion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh framed a charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and examined four witnesses in his defence. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh framed a charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and examined four witnesses in his defence. The learned trial Judge vide judgment under challenge proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced him to three years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenged the conviction of the appellant and argued that there is no material on the record to show that the appellant fever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was solemnised way back in the year 1980 whereas the deceased committed suicide in the year 1994 i.e. after nearly 14 years of the marriage. He urged that there is no material on record to show that the deceased had ever been harassed or humiliated by the appellant for any reason whatsoever. Learned counsel pointed out to the statements of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 and urged that these witnesses were the neighbours of the appellant and they did not state that the appellant ever maltreated the deceased. Rather they in their depositions stated that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were cordial. Commenting on the testimony of the witnesses PW-6 Chhitar Mai, PW-7 Bherulal (brother in law' of the deceased), PW-8 Rakesh Kumar (brother of the deceased), PW-9 Ramswaroop, PW-10 Mishrilal, PW-11 Bhanwari (mother of the deceased) and PW-12 Prabhu Dayal (father of the deceased), the learned counsel submitted that the testimony of these witnesses was neither reliable nor was corroborated by any plausible evidence. He contended that the letters which have been proved on record by the witness Prabhu Dayal were not recovered from the appellant and were not the part of the charge Sheet. Learned counsel further contended that the letters bear the date of the year 1989 whereas the occurrence took place in the year 1994, and therefore, no inference can be drawn from the letters that the appellant maltreated the deceased soon before her death so as to uphold his guilt. Learned counsel further contended that the letters bear the date of the year 1989 whereas the occurrence took place in the year 1994, and therefore, no inference can be drawn from the letters that the appellant maltreated the deceased soon before her death so as to uphold his guilt. Learned counsel urged that the defence witnesses have unequivocally stated that the deceased and the appellant were living happily in matrimony, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. was uncalled for. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions of the counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the appellant was unemployed at the time of marriage but thereafter, as soon as he gained employment as a Government teacher, he started harassing and humiliating the deceased for various reasons. Referring to the letters Ex.P-14, Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16, learned Public Prosecutor argued that a bare reading of the letters discloses the perverted mind of the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in the letters, the appellant has gone to the extent of making indecent remarks about the character of the deceased and wrote that she had incestuous relations with her father. Learned Public Prosecutor thus urged that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Court is based on a just and proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the judgment impugned and the record. 7. The admitted position as is revealed from the record is that the deceased was married to the appellant way back in the year 1980. She committed suicide after nearly 14 years of the marriage. As the interval between the marriage of the appellant with the deceased and her suicide is more than 7 years, no presumption is available to the prosecution in this case. As per the admitted facts available on record, the appellant on seeing the deceased hanging from a noose, immediately informed the police. The police officers as well as the Executive Magistrate came to the place of occurrence and broke open the door of the house of the appellant and took down the body. Thereafter, the S.H.O. PW-14 Kalu Lal allegedly made an enquiry from the matrimonial relatives of the deceased and registered the F.I.R. Ex.P-17A. The police officers as well as the Executive Magistrate came to the place of occurrence and broke open the door of the house of the appellant and took down the body. Thereafter, the S.H.O. PW-14 Kalu Lal allegedly made an enquiry from the matrimonial relatives of the deceased and registered the F.I.R. Ex.P-17A. Significantly, no report regarding the appellant having abetted or instigated the deceased for committing suicide was filed by the matrimonial relatives of the deceased. The report Ex.P-17A refers to certain statements made by the father and the brother of the deceased who implicated the appellant for abetting Manju to commit suicide but no such statements are available on record. Though it is true that the letters Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14, Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 exhibited by the father of the deceased disclose the perverted state of mind of the appellant but the fact remains that all these letters were written in the year 1989. It is beyond comprehension as to why despite these kind of perverted letters having been written by the appellant to the father of the deceased, she was still kept at the matrimonial home. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that merely by these letters no inference can be drawn regarding the appellant having instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The principal evidence which the prosecution chose to rely upon was the testimony of the witnesses; PW-6 Chhitarmal, PW-7 Bherulal, PW-Rakesh Kumar, PW-9 Ramswaroop, PW-10 Mishrilal, PW-11 Bhanwari, PW-12 Prabhu Dayal, PW-6 Chhitarmal stated that the deceased used to come to Kekri and at that time she used to complain about the misbehaviour of the appellant. The last meeting of the witness with the deceased was about a year prior to the incident. Thus, the evidence of this witness is of no avail to the prosecution because his last meeting with the deceased was long before the day on which she committed suicide. PW-7 Bherulal admitted in his cross-examination that whatever complaints regarding maltreatment of Smt. Manju were heard by him were revealed by his father in law. Thus, the deceased never made any direct complaint to this witness regarding any maltreatment by the appellant and his testimony is simply hearsay. PW-8 Rakesh Kumar the brother of the deceased also did not give any particular time period regarding the maltreatment meted out by the appellant to the deceased. Thus, the deceased never made any direct complaint to this witness regarding any maltreatment by the appellant and his testimony is simply hearsay. PW-8 Rakesh Kumar the brother of the deceased also did not give any particular time period regarding the maltreatment meted out by the appellant to the deceased. In his cross-examination the witness admitted that he told the deceased not to go back to matrimonial home but the deceased, of her own free will went back for staying with her husband. PW-9 Ramswaroop has made an omnibus statement about the complaint made by the deceased regarding her husband having abused her and assaulted her. In cross-examination he admitted that this fact was told by Prabhu Dayal, father of the deceased about one year before the incident. PW-10 Mishrilal in his cross-examination admitted that Manju told him about the maltreatment given by her husband about 6 years prior to the incident. PW-11 Bhanwari the mother of the deceased has given an entirely new story and alleged that the appellant was having illicit relations with a woman of Balal caste, and therefore, the husband and wife used to quarrel. She also alleged that the accused did not permit the deceased to dress up properly. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that most of the facts which she alleged in her examination in chief were not narrated in her police statement Ex.D-3. She further admitted that Manju was deeply in love with Mohanlal and was not angry with him. She also used to send letters about being happy in her matrimonial life. PW-12 Prabhu Dayal, father of the deceased stated about the physical and mental cruelly meted out to the deceased by the appellant. He place on record the letters Ex.P-14 lo Ex.P-16 allegedly written by the appellant. He also alleged that after he received the letters he did not permit Manju to go back to her matrimonial house but thereafter Mohanlal apologised and then Manju went back with him. However, the witness no where stated that the deceased was harassed or humiliated by the appellant soon before her death. The witness was confronted with his police statement Ex.D-4 and it was brought on record that the witness has made significant improvement in his sworn testimony from his earlier version deposed by him before the police. However, the witness no where stated that the deceased was harassed or humiliated by the appellant soon before her death. The witness was confronted with his police statement Ex.D-4 and it was brought on record that the witness has made significant improvement in his sworn testimony from his earlier version deposed by him before the police. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that when Mohanlal lived at Madesar, Manju also lived with him and she sent numerous letters regarding maltreatment meted out to her by the appellant but the witness did not produce any of the letters on record. The defence witnesses DW-l Raja Ram and DW-2 Raju have stated about the cordial relations of the deceased and the appellant. 8. In view of the evidence which has been referred to above, it is admitted that the deceased and the appellant were married fourteen years before the incident and thus, it is not a case wherein the prosecution is having the benefit of presumption available to it so that the burden can be shifted on to the accused. In the absence of any presumption operating against the accused, the prosecution was under a duty lo prove by cogent and unimpeachable evidence that the appellant instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The letters Ex.P-14 to 16 were written in the year 1989 and could have played a significant part in bringing home the guilt of the appellant but as the deceased committed suicide in the year 1994 i.e. nearly after five years from the date when the letters were written, these letters loose significance. If at all the deceased had any ill will against the appellant after these letters were written, then there could not have been any reason for her to have continued her relations with the appellant. As has been deposed by PW-8 Rakesh, he advised the deceased not to go back with the appellant but the deceased of her own free will went back to her matrimonial home. The witness has gone to the extent of deposing that the deceased went back happily. Similar is the statement given by the mother of the deceased PW-11 Bhanwari. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to lead any cogent and convincing evidence for proving that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 9. Similar is the statement given by the mother of the deceased PW-11 Bhanwari. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to lead any cogent and convincing evidence for proving that the appellant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. 9. The trial Judge has principally relied upon the letters Ex.P-14 to P-16 for recording the finding of guilt against the appellant. As has been discussed above, the letters were written about five years prior to the incident and thereafter the deceased voluntarily lived with the appellant and thus the contents of the letters are not sufficient to hold that the deceased was instigated by the appellant to commit suicide. 10. In view of the above discussion, the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the trial Judge cannot be sustained.Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be accepted and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is already on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are discharged.Appeal allowed. *******