Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 268 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Madan Lal

2017-03-30

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2017
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons), one of them i.e. respondent No. 1 Madan Lal has expired during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra, Sessions Division at Dharamshala vide impugned judgment dated 30.3.2013, passed in sessions Case No. 67-K/VII/2010/08. 2. This appeal has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned judgment and after recording the findings of conviction against the accused persons to convict them for the commission of the offence they allegedly committed. 3. The charges against all the accused persons were that they all started treating deceased Sweety Bala, wife of accused Madan Lal (since dead) with cruelty, mental as well as physical, after 5-6 years of her marriage. As a result thereof, she consumed ‘phosphide’, a poisonous substance at 8:00 AM on 18.10.2007, at the place of her in-laws i.e. village Baidi, Tehsil Kangra under the jurisdiction of Police Station Kangra, H.P. Therefore, all the coaccused in furtherance of their common intention have allegedly tortured the deceased and abetted the commission of suicide by her. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove charges so framed against the accused persons, has examined 16 witnesses in all. However, the material prosecution witnesses are the mother of the deceased PW-1 Radha Rani, her brother PW-4 Sanjeev Kumar, Uncle PW-5 Pawan Kumar, PW-7 Ghandharv Singh and maternal Uncle PW-10 Des Raj. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence as has come on record by way of their testimony and also by that of the official witnesses, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. They all have therefore been acquitted of the charges which were framed against each of them. 5. The grouse of the appellant-State herein is that learned trial Judge has brushed aside the cogent and reliable evidence produced by the prosecution without assigning any reason. The findings of acquittal as recorded, therefore, are stated to be not legally and factually sustainable. On hearing learned Addl. 5. The grouse of the appellant-State herein is that learned trial Judge has brushed aside the cogent and reliable evidence produced by the prosecution without assigning any reason. The findings of acquittal as recorded, therefore, are stated to be not legally and factually sustainable. On hearing learned Addl. Advocate General at length and also going through the entire evidence as well as taking into consideration the arguments addressed on behalf of the appearing accused-respondents No. 2 & 3, the questions which have engaged our attention and need adjudication are that the findings of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court are not in consonance vis-à-vis oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of trial. 6. Interestingly enough, the deceased was married to accused Madan Lal nine years ago of her suicidal death. As per the first version which find recorded in the statement Ext. PW-1/A of Smt. Radha Rani, the mother of the deceased, accused started torturing her daughter immediately after 5-6 months of her marriage. The cause as to why she was being tortured or being turned out from the matrimonial home, however, is missing in Ext. PW-1/A and also in the statement of the material prosecution witnesses, named hereinabove. As per their version, it is deceased Madan Lal, the husband of deceased Sweety Bala who had apprised on 18.10.2007 around 2:00 PM over telephone that Sweety Bala had consumed poison and that PW-1 Radha Rani should reach in Dharamshala hospital at once. PW-1 Radha Rani tells us in her examination-in-chief that her statement Ext. PW- 1/A was recorded by the police, however, at what stage, the same is silent. Now, if coming to her cross-examination, she tells us about recording of her statements by the police twice i.e. first at the time when her deceased daughter was admitted for treatment in the hospital and secondly in the mortuary when her post mortem was being conducted. We could lay our hands only on her statement i.e. Ext. PW-1/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. i.e. after the death of Sweety Bala. Where is her first statement which as per her version was recorded at the time when the deceased was admitted in hospital, the record is silent, meaning thereby that the allegations leveled by the complainant party against the accused persons are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. PW-1/A recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. i.e. after the death of Sweety Bala. Where is her first statement which as per her version was recorded at the time when the deceased was admitted in hospital, the record is silent, meaning thereby that the allegations leveled by the complainant party against the accused persons are not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The possibility of the present case foisted against the accused persons under some political pressure cannot be ruled out because admittedly, Chaudhary Ashok Kumar, Advocate, nephew of Sh. Chander Kumar, Former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister of Himachal Pradesh was related to complainant party, being son-in-law (Chacha Sasur) of PW-1 Radha Rani. Though, it is denied that the case against the accused was engineered and manipulated under political pressure, however, when specific instances of cruelty thereof remained unexplained, therefore, in view of the recent trend of implicating the in-laws of a married women having committed suicide, the false implication of the accused persons cannot be ruled out. 7. The Panchayat was there in the village of the complainant party. The Pradhan/Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was none else but PW-10 Des Raj, maternal Uncle of the deceased. As per the own admission of PW-1 Radha Rani, Police Post Gaggal was at a distance of 3 kms. from her house. As admitted by all the material prosecution witnesses, they never reported the matter qua the alleged torturing and harassment of the deceased in the matrimonial home either to the Gram Panchayat or to the police. They rather had been consoling the deceased as and when she comes to them with a complaint of her maltreatment and torturing against accused and make her to understand to return to the matrimonial home. Had the degree of alleged cruelty been to such an extent that the deceased decided to put an end of her life by committing suicide, the complainant party instead of pacifying or consoling the deceased or persuading her to return to the matrimonial home was expected to have reported the matter either to the Panchayat, police or have filed complaint in the Court of law against her in-laws. As a matter of fact, while in the witness-box, they had no explanation to offer to justify their conduct in not reporting the matter to the authorities that the accused started treating the deceased with cruelty. 8. As a matter of fact, while in the witness-box, they had no explanation to offer to justify their conduct in not reporting the matter to the authorities that the accused started treating the deceased with cruelty. 8. It is significant to note that two issues were born to the deceased out of her wed-lock with accused Madan Lal (since dead). As per the testimony of PW-1 Radha Rani, the complainant and PW-4 Sanjeev Kumar, the daughter of the deceased was studying in 7th standard whereas son in 4th standard. This fact was not disclosed to the Investigating Agency as has come in the statement of complainant PW-1 Radha Rani while in the witnessbox. The Investigating Agency has also not made any effort to associate the daughter and son of the deceased during the course of investigation. As a matter of fact, a child studying in 7th standard is mature enough and can be said to be a material witness in a case of this nature having witnessed the harassment and torturing of his/her mother at the hands of his/her father or any relative(s) of father. Therefore, the daughter of deceased would have deposed something tangible to lend support to the prosecution case had there been any ill-treatment or harassment of her mother at the hands of accused Madan Lal or her grand parents, accused Munshi Ram and Geeta Devi. Since she has not been associated during the course of investigation, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. Above all, the only independent witness PW-7 Ghandharv Singh examined by the prosecution has not supported its case and rather he has turned hostile. His testimony, therefore, belies the prosecution case that the accused persons started treating the deceased with cruelty after 5-6 months of her marriage and that this fact was disclosed by the deceased herself to this witness. The rest of the prosecution case that the accused used to turn out the deceased from the matrimonial home and that he tried to settle the matter between the complainant party and the accused on several occasions is without any result having also been denied being wrong. According to him, the accused never compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of PW-7 Ghandharv Singh because he is Rajput by caste whereas accused belongs to Ghirth community. According to him, the accused never compelled the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of PW-7 Ghandharv Singh because he is Rajput by caste whereas accused belongs to Ghirth community. It has come in his examination-in-chief that accused was his relative, however, clarified in his cross-examination that he was not related with them in any manner, whatsoever, and rather he had friendly relations with the parents of the deceased. He had settled the marriage of the deceased with accused Madan Lal in the capacity of a mediator, however, neither party approached him for getting the dispute, if any, amongst them to be sorted out by him. 9. Therefore, the evidence discussed hereinabove is not suggestive of that the deceased was being tortured by the accused persons and the degree thereof was to such an extent that the deceased deemed it appropriate to put an end to her life and that too when she was mother of two minor children. 10. A bare reading of Section 498-A reveals that subjecting the wife to cruelty by her husband or his relative with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet with their unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or any willful conduct of the husband of such woman or his relative, of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health is sine qua non to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. We are drawing support in this regard from the judgment dated 12.8.2016 of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in Cr. Appeal No. 800 of 2008 titled State of H.P. vs. Rajinder Singh and others. 11. If coming to the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution is required to plead and prove beyond all reasonable doubt that some person has committed suicide and he/she did so after being instigated by the accused. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Its simple meaning is that a person abets the doing of a thing, who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing. Abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Its simple meaning is that a person abets the doing of a thing, who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for doing of that thing. If an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order of doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing can be said to have abetted the doing of that thing. 12. It is thus crystal clear that in order to infer the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution is required to plead and prove that one person has instigated another person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation, such another person had committed suicide. It is only in that event the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. 13. Interestingly enough, even for the arguments sake if it is believed that in the case in hand, the deceased was being treated with cruelty by the accused persons, it is not the case of the prosecution that her torturing and mal-treatment was for the demand of dowry or any valuable security by her husband accused Madan Lal or his parents accused Munshi Ram and Geeta Devi. There is not even a whisper in this regard in the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. It cannot also be believed by any stretch of imagination that she was being tortured by her in-laws. 14. In view of the contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements, as noticed hereinabove, the allegations of cruelty as has come on record in the statements of PW-1 Radha Rani, PW-4 Sanjeev Kumar, PW-5 Pawan Kumar, PW-7 Gandharv Singh and PW-10 Desh Raj are nothing else but merely an after thought and leveled with an idea to implicate the accused persons in this case falsely. 15. We, therefore, are not in agreement with learned Addl. Advocate General representing the State i.e. appellant herein that it is on account of maltreatment of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons, they abetted the commission of suicide by her within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. 15. We, therefore, are not in agreement with learned Addl. Advocate General representing the State i.e. appellant herein that it is on account of maltreatment of the deceased at the hands of the accused persons, they abetted the commission of suicide by her within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. The remaining prosecution witnesses PW-2 Const. Vijay Kumar, PW-3 Dr. Vivek Sood, PW-6 Shiv Kumar, PW-8 HHC Kuldeep Singh, PW-9 HHC Ajeet Singh, PW-11 HC Vijay Singh, PW-12 HC Gopal Sain, PW-13 HC Rahul Rishi, PW-14 ASI Nirmal Dass, PW-15 Insp. Ranjit Singh and PW-16 Dr. Ashok Kumar are formal, as they remained associated during the investigation of the case in one way or the other. Their evidence at the most could have been used as link evidence had the prosecution otherwise been able to bring guilt home to the accused by way of producing cogent and reliable evidence. 17. As a matter of fact, the present is a case where nothing suggesting that the deceased was being tortured or harassed by the accused persons in connection with demand of dowry or otherwise or that the degree of cruelty was so high that she could not make comparison between life and death and rather in such a state of mind, chosen the pangs of death has come on record. True it is that in normal circumstances, no person is expected to take such a drastic step to do away with his/her life and that too without there being any cause, however, present is not a case where it can be said that the accused persons had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. 18. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bonds furnished by the accused persons shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.