Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 50 (GAU)

Ramesh Das v. State of Assam

2016-01-22

C.R.SARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : C.R. Sarma, J. This appeal, from jail, is directed against the judgment and order, dated 13.09.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bongaigaon, in Session Case No. 93(M)/2011. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default suffer R.I. for another period of 6 months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage between the appellant and his wife (since deceased) was performed in the year 2008 and thereafter they used to live in the marital home till the death of the deceased. As alleged, the appellant subjected his said wife to torture in connection with demand of money and being enable to bear the torture she committed suicide on 24.06.2012 by hanging herself. 3. PW 1 i.e. the father of the deceased lodged the FIR with the police. On receipt of the FIR police registered a case under Section 304(B)/34 IPC against the appellant and his father. At the close of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 304(B)/34 IPC. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and discharged the father of the appellant. The charge was read over and explained to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. His plea was a denial one. In support of its case the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the Investigating Officers (PW Nos.7 and 8). The Medical Officer (PW 9) and the Executive Magistrate (PW 10), who performed the inquest in respect of the dead body. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegations brought against him and declined to adduce defence evidence. 4. Considering evidence, on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the findings that the appellant tortured his wife in connection with demand of money and that the said torture led her to commit suicide. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. Considering evidence, on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the findings that the appellant tortured his wife in connection with demand of money and that the said torture led her to commit suicide. Accordingly the learned Sessions Judge holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC and convicted and sentenced him as indicated above. The other accused person i.e. the father of the appellant was acquitted for want of evidence. Dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence aforesaid the convicted person, who has been undergoing the imprisonment, has preferred this appeal from jail. As there is none to represent the appellant, Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned counsel has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant. 5. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, learned Amicus Curiae, referring evidence, on record, has submitted that except the evidence given by PW 1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased, there is no other incriminating evidence against the appellant. The learned Amicus Curiae has also submitted that though PW 1 and 2 stated that the appellants used to torture the deceased in connection with demand of money, there is no specific evidence indicating the amount of money so demanded by the appellants and the nature and gravity of the torture alleged to be meted out to the deceased. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no substantive evidence for concluding that the alleged torture and demand of money were the causes of committing the suicide. The learned Amicus Curiae referring to the statutory provision prescribed by Sections 307 and 306 IPC has submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the existence of the ingredients under Section 107 IPC and as such the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 306 is not maintainable. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has been undergoing imprisonment for about 2 years 6 months for no fault on his part. In view of above, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 6. Controverting the said argument advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P. referring to the evidence of PW Nos. In view of above, the learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 6. Controverting the said argument advanced by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P.P. referring to the evidence of PW Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the parents of the deceased has contended that it has been specifically stated by the said witnesses that the appellant used to torture the deceased in connection with demand of money and that failing to bear the said torture, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. 7. Supporting the impugned conviction and sentence the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the learned Trial Judge has based his findings on the basis of the evidence on record and as such the said judgment and order need no interference. 8. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, I have carefully perused the evidence on record and the judgment and order aforesaid. Admittedly, the decease died within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage with the appellant. The medical evidence, given by PW No. 9, who performed autopsy in respect of the dead body of the deceased, indicates that the deceased died due to asphyxia following hanging. PW 9 has exhibited the post mortem report as ext. No. 7 and his signature, therein, as ext. No. 7(1). All the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 stated that the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. In view of the said conviction, recorded under Section 306 IPC it is to be examined as to whether there was torture and demand of money and the alleged torture and demand of money amounted to abatement to commit suicide ? 9. Section 107 IPC which defines abetment reads as follows :- "107. Abetment of a thing-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." 10. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "Intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have "Intentionally" aided the commission of the crime. PW 4 and 5, who stated that they came to know about the suicide committed by the deceased, did not whisper anything regarding torture and demand of money. PW 4, in his evidence, clearly stated that he did not know as to why the deceased committed suicide. From the evidence of PW 4, it appears that he used to visit the residence of the deceased and the appellant for watching T.V. and on the fateful day also he had visited their house. From his evidence, it appears that he left the house of the appellant at about 5 p.m. His statement that he did not know the cause of committing suicide raises doubt about the prosecution story of abetment to commit suicide. If the deceased was tortured in connection with demand of dowry, compelling her to commit suicide, the PW 4 who was a regular visitor, would have normally come to know about the torture etc. His failure to support the prosecution story in this regard, raises doubt about the story itself. 11. Sri Gajen Das, deposing as PW 5, stated that the appellant on the date of occurrence went to Odlaguri and on the same day at about 8 p.m. he informed this witness that the door of his house was closed from inside and that his wife i.e. the deceased did not open the same. According to this witness, on being so informed, he accompanied the appellant to his house and peeping through the bamboo wall of the house he could notice that the deceased was hanging. This witness also did not whisper anything regarding torture and demand of money. From his said evidence, it appears that, on the date of occurrence i.e. at the time of incident, the appellant was not in his residence. This evidence of PW 5 remained undemolished. The absence of the appellant from his house on the date of occurrence indicates that he did not commit any wrong with the deceased, immediately before committing suicide by her. 12. PW 3, who was a relative of the deceased stated that she came to know that a quarrel had taken place between the said couple and that the deceased, during her life time told her that her husband used to torture her demanding dowry items. 12. PW 3, who was a relative of the deceased stated that she came to know that a quarrel had taken place between the said couple and that the deceased, during her life time told her that her husband used to torture her demanding dowry items. Except stating that the deceased was tortured by the appellant, this witness did not state anything about the manner in which the appellant was tortured. The said statement is a bold statement. 13. PW 2, the mother of the deceased, also stated that after her daughter's marriage, the deceased was tortured by the appellant in connection with demand of dowry articles. She further stated that, on the date of occurrence hearing hue and cry raised by the villagers, she came to know that the deceased had committed suicide. She further stated that she did not visit the house of the a appellant to see the dead body of her daughter. This witness also did not state in what manner the deceased was tortured or as to what items were demanded by the appellant. 14. PW 1 i.e. the father of the deceased who lodged the FIR stated that the appellant and his father used to torture the deceased in connection with demand of money. This witness also did not state anything regarding the nature of torture meted out to the deceased and the amount of money demanded by the appellant. 15. From the above evidence given by PW 1, 2 and 3, it appears that their evidence regarding torture and demand of money or articles is vague. The said bold statements, made by them, cannot lead to the conclusion that the deceased was tortured by the appellant in connection with demand of money. In view of above, it cannot be safely hold that the alleged torture was the cause of the death of the deceased. There is nothing, on record, to show that the appellant had intentionally instigated or added the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution failed to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the appellant had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the appellant i.e. the accused person. Hence, I find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference. Accordingly, the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside. Therefore, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the appellant i.e. the accused person. Hence, I find sufficient merit in this appeal requiring interference. Accordingly, the impugned conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted and he be released forthwith, if not required, in any other case. Before I part with the judgment, I acknowledge with appreciation the services rendered by Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Amicus Curiae and order that an amount of Rs. 7,500/- be paid to Mr. S.K. Agarwal as his remuneration by the State Legal Services Authority. Return the LCR.