Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1547 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar

2016-08-01

RAJIV SHARMA, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Aggrieved by acquittal of respondent/accused vide judgment, dated 01.05.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in RBT Sessions Case No. 75-G/VII/2010/2009 in case FIR No. 168/2007 registered under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, in P.S. Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, the State has preferred present appeal. 2. In present case, deceased Krishna Devi was married with respondent Vijay Kumar about 17-18 years prior to committing suicide by her. Couple was blessed with one son and a daughter out of their wedlock. As per prosecution story after marriage relation of husband and wife were cordial for 8-10 years. Thereafter respondent had started harassing and torturing deceased by giving beatings under influence of liquor and by not providing any maintenance to her. Due to harassment and maltreatment by respondent, deceased had committed suicide on 23.10.2008. Respondent had telephonically informed his father-in-law about death of deceased. On the basis of statement of father of deceased FIR under Sections 498- A and 306 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court and respondent was charge sheeted under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. On conclusion of trial respondent has been acquitted by trial Court. 3. We have heard learned counsel for parties and also have gone through record. 4. PW-1 Gian Chand father of deceased had deposed that his deceased daughter was married with Vijay Kumar about 17-18 years back and they were blessed with two children. After 8-10 years of marriage, respondent had left his job and had come to his house. He had stated that respondent was not paying any maintenance to his daughter and had started beating her. On reporting matter to Panchayat, a compromise was effected between parties on intervention of Panchayat, but after few days, respondent had again started beating his daughter which was telephonically conveyed to him by his daughter. Thereafter, his wife (mother) of deceased had visited to advise respondent. He had further stated that about two years back at about 8.00 pm respondent informed about death of his daughter on telephone whereupon they informed the police and gone to house of respondent where they found that deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison. He has alleged that deceased had consumed poison because of torture of respondent. 5. He had further stated that about two years back at about 8.00 pm respondent informed about death of his daughter on telephone whereupon they informed the police and gone to house of respondent where they found that deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison. He has alleged that deceased had consumed poison because of torture of respondent. 5. PW-4 Rajender Kumar, real brother and PW-5 Ranjeet Singh cousin had stated that after marriage respondent used to beat and torture their sister and she used to tell them about this. They had not stated even a single instance of torture, beating or harassment and also not about any reason for beating deceased by respondent. 6. PW-6 Madan Lal (Jija) and PW-8 Pritam Chand Cousin had also deposed in the like manner except adding incident of quarrel between deceased and respondent at the time of marriage of Vinod son of PW-6 Madan Lal. 7. In cross-examination, PW-1 Gian Chand, PW-4 Rajinder Kumar and PW-8 Pritam Chand had admitted that after marriage, deceased and respondent had been visiting their houses on every function. PW-1 and PW-8 had admitted that at the time of death of deceased and thereafter her children were residing with respondent. PW-1 had also admitted that respondent had left his job on account of old age and sickness of his parents. He had also admitted that respondent used to drink on occasion of marriage function. He had stated that he had not made any written complaint before Pradhan and police and no Panchayat had ever called respondent. He had admitted that respondent deceased and their children had attended one marriage three-four days prior to death of his daughter. PW-8 had stated that respondent had made a telephonic call to PW-1 informing death of deceased by saying that he himself also was going to consume poison. 8. PW-3 Chander Kanta was Ward Panch of Gram Panchayat Pihari. She was declared hostile for resiling from her previous statement recorded by Police but in examination-in- Chief she had stated that PW-15 Roshni Devi mother of respondent had come to her and told that her daughter-in-law (Krishna deceased) and her son Vijay were saying to consume poison and both of them would die. Thereupon, she had tried to contact Pradhan and had visited house of respondent where Krishna was found lying dead in bed. 9. Thereupon, she had tried to contact Pradhan and had visited house of respondent where Krishna was found lying dead in bed. 9. PW-9, Tarlok Chand, a Private RMP Practitioner, was called by PW-6 Madan Lal to house on 21.10.2008 at about 8.30. PM by telling that respondent had consumed ‘Phenol’ but on checking it was found that respondent had not consumed ‘Phenol’ but beer. 10. Allegations levelled by PW-1 PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 are general in nature which cannot be treated sufficient to hold respondent guilty for cruelty under Section 498-A and/or also to convict respondent under Section 306 of IPC. 11. Respondent and deceased were living together for 17-18 years and were blessed with one son and one daughter and there was not even a single instance when matter was reported to Police, Panchayat or any other Authority. Prosecution witnesses had also failed to point out any specific instance of quarrel, harassment or beating to deceased by respondent. 12. A single instance of quarrel amongst couple in the marriage of son of PW-6 that too 2-3 days prior to committing suicide by deceased cannot be treated as cruelty, harassment or torture so as to force deceased to commit suicide. Prosecution has to establish that instigation by respondent was so directly co-related and proximate with act of suicide that it could be safely inferred that deceased had committed suicide only on account of such instigation. General allegations of harassment and torture however strong may be do not made out any case of abetment to commit suicide. 13. To prove cruelty subjected to deceased by respondent, prosuection has relied upon statement of PW-1 Gian Chand father of deceased, PW-4 Rajender Kumar brother, PW-5 Ranjit Singh cousin PW-6 Madan Lal brother in law and PW-8 Pritam Chand cousin of deceased. Prosuection has also examined PW-2 Arjun Singh son, PW-7 Usha Devi daughter and PW-15 Roshni Devi mother in law of deceased. Besides this, PW-3 Chander Kanta Ward Panch of Pihari Panchayat has also been examined by prosuection. 14. PW-2 Arjun Singh, PW-7 Usha Devi and PW-15 Roshni Devi were declared hostile on resiling from their statements recorded by police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. These witnesses were subjected to cross examination by learned public prosecutor. Besides this, PW-3 Chander Kanta Ward Panch of Pihari Panchayat has also been examined by prosuection. 14. PW-2 Arjun Singh, PW-7 Usha Devi and PW-15 Roshni Devi were declared hostile on resiling from their statements recorded by police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. These witnesses were subjected to cross examination by learned public prosecutor. These witnesses were present in the house on the day on which deceased had committed suicide and were also residing with deceased and respondent prior to day of incident. In their statements it had emerged that respondent Vijay Kumar, deceased PW-2 Arjun Singh and PW-7 Usha Devi had attended marriage of Vinod Kumar son of PW-6 Madan Lal brother in law of deceased (Jija) w.e.f. 18.10.2008 to 20.10.2008. On 21st October, 2008 some altercations had taken place between husband and wife and respondent had pretended that he had consumed poison where upon deceased had called PW-6 Madan Lal (her Jija), her sister Saroj and PW-9 Tarlok Chand, a private RMP Practitioner. However, on check up it was fond that respondent had not consumed poison but beer. 15. There is no specific incident on record indicating quarrel between husband and wife amounting cruelty for which respondent could be held liable for subjecting deceased to cruelty driving her to commit suicide. There is also no evidence of even general behaviour attracting provisions of Sections 498- A and/or 306 IPC. 16. PW-2 had also admitted suggestions of Public Prosecutor that when his mother started weeping, respondent had come there and said that if she would die then he would also die. 17. On the basis of evidence, available on record it can only be said that there was some quarrel between husband and wife on 21.10.2008 and both of them were expressing desire to commit suicide but at the same time both of them were also trying to save each other as on doubt of consumption of poison by respondent, deceased had called private RMP Practitioner and her sister and brother-in-law (Jija) to save life of respondent. Respondent had also expressed his desire to die in case of death of deceased. 18. The words uttered in quarrel or in spur of moment or in anger cannot be treated as a cruelty driving a person to commit suicide. Respondent had also expressed his desire to die in case of death of deceased. 18. The words uttered in quarrel or in spur of moment or in anger cannot be treated as a cruelty driving a person to commit suicide. As discussed above, there is no allegation of demand of dowry or any other valuable article of property nor there is any willful conduct of such a nature as was likely to derive deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, there is no evidence to convict respondent under Section 498-A IPC. Before parting with this case it is necessary to held that observations of learned trial Court that ‘mere harassment by itself is not cruelty and it is only when harassment is shown to have been given for the propose of coercing a woman to meet the demand of dowry is cruelty’ is contrary to provision of law and cruelty can be there even in absence of demand of dowry as provided in explanation (a) to Section 498-A. However, in present case, there is no evidence to bring case under ambit and scope of explanation (a) and (b) in proviso to Section 498-A IPC. 19. For convicting a person under Section 306 of IPC prosecution has to establish that instigation by a person was so direct, co-related and proximate with the act of suicide that it can be safely inferred that deceased had committed suicide only on account of such instigation. Mere harassment or every quarrel between husband and wife would not constitute the offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Mere fact that some quarrel had taken place between deceased and respondent with threatening to each other to commit suicide cannot be treated as abetment to commit suicide so as to attract conviction of respondent under Section 306 IPC. 20 In present case, prosecution evidence is lacking evidence so as to hold respondent guilty under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 21. Prosecution has failed to prove any omission or commission on the part of respondent beyond reasonable doubt so as to attract provision of Sections 498-A and Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 22. Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no merit in the appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in impugned judgment. Learned trial Court has appreciated evidence on record completely and correctly. 23. 22. Prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no merit in the appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in impugned judgment. Learned trial Court has appreciated evidence on record completely and correctly. 23. Allegations as made against respondent are not trustworthy, believable, convincing and therefore cannot be treated as cogent, reliable and convincing to convict the respondent under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. The present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be sent back forthwith.