Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1998 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Jai Ram

2014-12-24

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement of acquittal rendered on 29.12.2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Sessions trial No. 7/7 of 2012 whereby he acquitted the respondents for theirs having committed offence punishable under Section 306 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that marriage of Jitender Kumar (deceased) was solemnized with Anita Kumari on 10.3.2007. Anita Kumari remained in the matrimonial home only for 1-2 months and thereafter on 29.5.2007 she was dropped at her parent’s house in Ghumarwin. Thereafter, PW-1 (Amar Singh) alongwith PW-2 (Ramesh Chand), PW-3 (Ram Pal) and PW-10 (Onkar Singh) went to call Anita Kumari but she did not come. Accused Jai Ram and Veena Devi raised demand for money i.e. a sum of Rs.5 lacs and also sought transfer of property in the name of Anita Kumari. The accused party have also demanded a sum of Rs.5 lacs for compromising the matter and getting divorce and thus alleging that Jitender Kumar was harassed by accused persons and he committed suicide on account of harassment caused to him by consuming poison on 28.5.2010 in village Kapahara. He was taken to C.H.Gumarwin for treatment. Dr. Sumit Verma (PW-5) had medically examined Jitender Kumar. He was thereafter referred for further treatment to Bilaspur, where ASI Pushp Raj (PW-11) recorded statement of Amar Singh and sent Rukka through constable Raj Kumar for registration of F.I.R. on which F.I.R. Ext.PW-8/A was registered. One suicide note Ext.PW-1/B was handed over to the police by Amar Singh which was taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo Ext.PW-1/C. Amar Singh had also produced admitted handwriting of Jitender Kumar to the police which are Ext.PW-1/D and Ext.PW-1/E and Ext.PW-1/G. In August, 2010 Amar Singh had found another suicide note Ext.PW-1/K written by his son addressed to him, which was also handed over to the police and taken through memo Ext.PW-1/J in the presence of Nirmla Devi and Raj Kumar. Dr. S.Sharad (PW-7) conducted post mortem examination of the dead body on 29.5.2010. Post mortem report Ext.PW-7/D given by him which reveals the cause of death was Coma due to poisoning. Dr. Dr. S.Sharad (PW-7) conducted post mortem examination of the dead body on 29.5.2010. Post mortem report Ext.PW-7/D given by him which reveals the cause of death was Coma due to poisoning. Dr. Minakshi Mahajan(PW-12) examined questioned item Ext.PW-1/B, suicide note and admitted items Ext.PW-1/D, Ext.PW-1/E and Ext.PW-1/G and given her report Ext.PW-11/C. Report reveals that admitted hand writings/signature and questioned item/suicide note, all have been written by one and the same person. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan, under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court. The trial Court charged the accused for theirs having committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they pleaded innocence. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused were given an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence and they chose not to adduce any evidence in defence. 5. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgement of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court. Shri J.S.Guleria, Assistant Advocate General, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction and concomitantly an appropriate sentence be imposed upon the accused/respondents. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below, are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The deceased (Jitender Kumar) was married to Anita Kumari. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The deceased (Jitender Kumar) was married to Anita Kumari. She stayed in her matrimonial home for one and half months. Thereafter she settled at her parental house. Concerted attempts on the part of the PW-1 Amar Singh father of deceased Jitender Kumar to retrieve her to her matrimonial home remained unsuccessful. The deceased committed suicide by consumption of poison, as is apparent on perusal of post mortem report Ext.PW-7/D. The ill-treatment and maltreatment which instigated and actuated the deceased to commit suicide is comprised in the testimonies of PW-1(Amar Singh), PW-2 (Ramesh Chand), PW-3 (Ram Pal) and PW-10 (Onkar Singh). The instigatory factor, which propelled the deceased to commit suicide is comprised in the factum as deposed by PW-1 of on his having visited the parental home of Anita Kumari, the latter having raised a demand of Rs.5 lacs and of transfer of land in her name for settling the marital issue inter se Jitender Kumar and his wife Anita Kumari. However, the occurrence of a statement in the examination-in-chief of PW-1 of the parents of the accused having raised a demand of Rs.5 lacs in lieu of settling the marital issue inter se Anita Kumari and Jitender Kumar appears to be an embellishment and an improvement, hence incredible in the face of PW-1 having omitted to state the fact aforesaid to the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the raising of a demand of Rs.5 lacs by the accused from PW-1 in lieu of settling the marital issue inter se deceased Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari acquires no potency rather is prevaricated. Even PW-2 in contradistinction to PW-1 who deposed qua the factum of the accused having raised a demand of Rs. Five lacs from PW-1 in lieu of settling the marital issue inter se deceased Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari, has deposed that a demand rather of Rs.3.50 lacs was raised by the accused for putting to rest the strife raging the matrimonial life of Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari. Five lacs from PW-1 in lieu of settling the marital issue inter se deceased Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari, has deposed that a demand rather of Rs.3.50 lacs was raised by the accused for putting to rest the strife raging the matrimonial life of Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari. Contradistinction, inter se the quantum of demand raised by the accused for settling the marital ties inter se Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari propels an inference that hence PW-2 never accompanied PW-1 besides the testimony of PW-1 qua the factum of a demand having been raised to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs by the accused to douse the estranged marital ties inter se Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari, stands dispelled. Moreover, existence of a statement, in the deposition of PW-1, of the accused having raised a demand from PW-1 of property being transferred in the name of Anita Kumari, too stands not corroborated by PW-2, hence for lack of corroboration to the said factum by PW-2 to the said fact as deposed by PW-1, renders it also incredible. In face of rife contradictions existing inter se PW-1 and PW-2 qua the demands raised by the accused to ebb the marital strife inter se the deceased Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari, which contradiction hence belies the presence of PW-2 alongwith PW-1 at the house of the accused, consequently when PW-10 and PW-3 depose qua the factum of PW-2 accompanying him to the house of the accused, their presence, too at the house of the accused alongwith PW-1 garners an aura of doubt. PW-10 too has deposed in purported corroboration to the testimony of PW-1 qua the demands raised by the accused to settle the marital issue inter se deceased Jitender Kumar and accused Anita Kumari, nonetheless when he in his examination-in-chief omits to name PW-3 to be also the person accompanying him to the house of the accused for improving the marital relations inter se deceased Jitender Kumar and accused Anita Kumari, an obvious conclusion which is to be formed is that PW-10 and PW-2 did not accompany PW-1 to the house of the accused. In sequel the version rendered by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 in purported corroboration to the deposition of PW-1, appears to be incredible. In sequel the version rendered by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 in purported corroboration to the deposition of PW-1, appears to be incredible. Even otherwise assuming that confabulations were underway inter se PW-1 and accused for ebbing the strife in the estranged marital relations inter se Jitender Kumar and Anita Kumari and assuming that some demand was raised by the accused to settle the marital strife, inter se them, nonetheless the demands as purportedly raised appear to have been raised to secure the future marital prospects of accused Anita Kumari, as such, when there is no colour of untenability or illegality, imbueable to the demands, as such, they cannot constitute any actuatory factor for the deceased to take his life. Moreso, when it has not been established that even if such demands were raised, either PW-1 or the deceased Jitender Kumar were financially disempowered to meet or comply with the demands of the accused, as such, they felt the pressure of the demands and Jitender Kumar reeling under the pressure of the demands was instigated to hence commit suicide, does not render the purported demands to be acquiring the potency to foment the deceased to commit suicide. Besides, when the demand as purportedly raised by the accused was made on the purported visit of PW-1 purportedly alongwith PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 to the house of the accused on 11.11.2007. However, the deceased committed suicide on 28.05.2010. Consequently, given the improximity in time inter se the purported demand and the accused ultimately taking to commit suicide, an apt conclusion which is to be formed is that the demand as purportedly raised by the accused from PW-1 for making accused Anita Kumari relent to join her matrimonial home did not constitute the instigatory or actuatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide especially when proximity inter se the demand and Jitender Kumar having been purportedly instigated by them to commit suicide, is the germane probative factor to be borne in mind by courts of law to construe that hence the purported demand inflamed Jitender Kumar to commit suicide. 10. The prosecution anvils its case on Ext.PW-1/B purportedly attributed to the deceased in which he inculpates the accused. 10. The prosecution anvils its case on Ext.PW-1/B purportedly attributed to the deceased in which he inculpates the accused. However, even if PW-12 has in her report comprised in Ext.PW-11/C opined therein that the admitted writings of the deceased comprised in Ext.PW-1/D, Ext.PW-1/E and Ext.PW-1/G on comparison with writings of the deceased comprised in Ext.PW-1/B portray that all are authored by the same person. However, the report of the handwriting expert would carry immense probative worth only in the event of it having come to be established by cogent evidence comprised in the deposition of persons acquainted with his handwritings and theirs deposing that the purported admitted handwritings attributed to the deceased belonged to him, besides in best evidence comprised in the Investigating Officer, given the employment of the deceased in the territorial army having procured from the place of service of the deceased, the admitted handwriting of the deceased. However, PW-11 the Investigating Officer has deposed that he omitted to verify from any of the relatives of the deceased, acquainted with the handwriting of the deceased, the fact which the handwriting purportedly attributed to the deceased comprised in Ext.PW-1/D, Ext.PW-1/E, and Ext.PW-1/G, belonged to him. Besides there is no endeavour on the part of the Investigating Officer to collect the admitting handwritings of the deceased from the place of his service. Absence of the aforesaid concerted efforts on the part of the Investigating Officer to elicit the aforesaid best evidence qua the factum of the admitted handwritings purportedly attributed to the deceased comprised in Ext.PW-1/D, Ext.PW-1/E and Ext.PW-1/G belonging to him constrains this Court to conclude that the purported admitted handwritings ascribed to the accused comprised in Ext.PW1/D, Ext.PW1/E and Ext.PW-1/G were not his admitted handwritings. Consequently, for want of cogent and best evidence displaying that Ext.PW1/D, Ext.PW1/E and Ext.PW-1/G are the admitted handwriting of the deceased, their comparison, if any, with the suicide note not constituting the admitted handwriting of the deceased was untenable. Besides the opinion rendered by the handwriting expert comprised in Ext.PW-11/C conveying that the handwritings borne on Ext.PW-1/B on comparison with the purported admitted handwritings of the deceased comprised in Ext.PW-1/D, Ext.PW-1/E and Ext.PW-1/G are authored by the same person does not lend credibility to the factum of the suicide note having been authored by the deceased. 11. Besides the opinion rendered by the handwriting expert comprised in Ext.PW-11/C conveying that the handwritings borne on Ext.PW-1/B on comparison with the purported admitted handwritings of the deceased comprised in Ext.PW-1/D, Ext.PW-1/E and Ext.PW-1/G are authored by the same person does not lend credibility to the factum of the suicide note having been authored by the deceased. 11. In view of the above discussion, the learned trial Court is to be concluded to have appreciated the evidence in a mature and balanced manner and its findings, hence, do not necessitate interference. The appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit and the findings rendered by the learned trial Court are affirmed and maintained.