Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1999 (ALL)

Sheela Devi v. State of U. P.

2019-08-21

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2018, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Chandauli, in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2012 (State vs. Rakesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 44 of 2009, under Section 306/34 IPC, Police Station Baluwa, District Chandauli, whereby the appellants Rakesh Yadav, Akhand Yadav and Sheela Devi have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 306/34 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50,000/- fine each and in default six months additional imprisonment each. It has further been directed that period already passed in jail shall be adjusted against the sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the daughter of the complainant Bindu was married to Rakesh Yadav, who was living in the joint family of Dashrath Yadav and Munni Lal. About three years and eight months ago, a partition took place between them and they started living separately. At the time of partition, Munni Lal had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Dashrath Yadav. Therefore, accused Munni Lal (Father-in-law), Rakesh Yadav (Husband), Akhand Yadav (Jeth) and Sheela Devi (Jethani) started pressurizing and beating deceased Bindu to bring Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents for payment of aforesaid loan. On 22.02.2009, on the occasion of Shivratri, when the complainant went to meet his daughter Bindu with Siya Ram Yadav, his daughter asked him to arrange Rs. 1,00,000/-, if he wants to see her alive. She told that her in-laws will kill her as Dashrath Yadav is regularly pressurizing for payment of money. She also said that if the complainant will not arrange Rs. 1,00,000/-, she will commit suicide with her children. They tried to console her and came back. On 25.02.2009, the complainant got information from her another daughter Inda Devi that Bindu has been beaten and forcibly expelled from the house and whether she reached to him or not. On 26.02.2009, when the informant was going to Kailawar for searching her daughter Bindu and her children, in Chandauli, he was informed by some persons that the dead bodies of a woman and two children are lying on the railway track. When he reached there, he found that his daughter and her two children had committed suicide after coming under a train. When he reached there, he found that his daughter and her two children had committed suicide after coming under a train. A report was given to Police Station Balua about the incident on 26.02.2009 naming all the accused persons and a case was registered against them for offence under Section 306/34 IPC. His daughter was aged about 35 years and her daughter was aged about 14 years and her son was aged about 12 years. 3. The inquest report was prepared and the dead bodies were sent for post-mortem in the district hospital where the post-mortem was conducted. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons namely Munni Lal. Rakesh Yadav, Akhand Yadav and Sheela Devi. The case was committed for trial and charge was framed against all the accused persons for evidence under Section 306 IPC. 4. The prosecution examined Chowki Incharge, Kailawar Sri Moti Lal as PW-1, Ramvriksh Yadav as PW-2, Siyaram Yadav as PW-3, Inda Devi as PW-4, retired SI Chandrakanti as PW-5 and Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh as PW-6. They have proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-1, site map as Exhibit Ka-2, Charge sheets as Exhibits Ka-3 and Ka-4, post-mortem reports as Exhibits Ka-5 to Ka-7, chik first information report as Exhibit Ka-8, G.D. Report as Exhibit Ka-9, Inquest reports as Exhibits Ka-10 to Ka-12 and the papers for sending the three dead bodies for post-mortem as Exhibits Ka-13 to Ka-26. 5. Accused Munni Lal died during trial, hence the case against him was abated. The statements of remaining accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., who admitted the marriage but denied the prosecution story. They stated it to be false that they expelled the deceased persons from the house after beating them. The fact is that she along with her children had gone to her parents on the occasion of Maha Shivratri and while coming back from there, she and her children got injured in accident by train near Majhwar Railway Station and died on spot. The death of all deceased took place out of accident by train but the complainant has filed a false case against them. The accused persons have examined in defence DW-1 Dharmraj Yadav and DW-2 Indrapal Singh Yadav. 6. The death of all deceased took place out of accident by train but the complainant has filed a false case against them. The accused persons have examined in defence DW-1 Dharmraj Yadav and DW-2 Indrapal Singh Yadav. 6. After hearing counsel for both the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the learned sessions judge by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused persons. 7. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, criminal appeals have been filed on the ground that the judgment is against the evidence on record and is against law. The conviction is wholly illegal and is liable to be set aside. The offence under Section 306/34 IPC was not established against the appellants. The statements of the witnesses are contradictory and against FIR version as well as site map. No independent witness has been examined and the witnesses examined, have turned hostile. Clearly the accident took place by train and there was no role of the convicted appellants, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused persons are entitled for acquittal. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. PW-1 Moti Lal Yadav has been examined to prove that the accused Munni Lal has died and it has no relevance with the prosecution case and during trial the case against the accused Munni Lal has been abated by the learned court below. 10. PW-2 Ramvriksh Yadav (complainant) has stated that Bindu was married to accused Rakesh Yadav. Her father-in-law and his brother had joint family. A few years ago from the date of incident, due to partition in the family, they started living separately. Munni Lal had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Dashrath Yadav and for the payment of the said loan, the accused persons were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and treating Bindu with cruelty and they used to beat her. On 22.02.2009, when he went to meet Bindu, she told him everything and said that the accused persons are pressurizing and harassing her for bringing Rs. 1,00,000/- and if this continues, she will commit suicide. On 26.02.2009, when he came to Chandauli, somebody told him that dead bodies of a woman and two children are lying on the railway track. He went there and recognized that it was the body of his daughter and her two children. 1,00,000/- and if this continues, she will commit suicide. On 26.02.2009, when he came to Chandauli, somebody told him that dead bodies of a woman and two children are lying on the railway track. He went there and recognized that it was the body of his daughter and her two children. She committed suicide with her children because of dowry harassment by coming under the train. He lodged the first information report about the incident. 11. PW-3 Siyaram Yadav has stated that Bindu was married to Rakesh Yadav and after three or four years, she went to her in-laws family after "Gaona". Subsequently, a partition took place between Munni Lal and Dashrath Yadav. Munni Lal has taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Dashrath Yadav after partition and the in-laws of Bindu were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- for payment of loan and harassing her. On 25.02.2009, Indu, the real sister of the deceased informed on telephone that Bindu has been forced to leave the matrimonial house after she has been beaten by her in-laws and when he and complainant went to search her, she was found dead with her children on the railway track. Bindu committed suicide due to dowry harassment. 12. PW-4 is Inda Devi, real sister of the deceased Bindu has stated that her sister was married with Rakesh Yadav. The accused persons were harassing her and the deceased had informed her on 25.02.2009 at 07:00 PM by telephone that her in-laws used to beat her. She informed her father for the same and on the next day, the dead bodies of Bindu and her two children were found on the railway track. She committed suicide because of harassment by the accused persons. 13. PW-5 is SI Chandrakanti has investigated the case and has stated that he recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence Exhibit Ka-2 and filed charge sheet which is Exhibit Ka-3. She also recorded the statements of other accused persons and the witnesses of inquest. She filed charge sheet also against accused persons which is Exhibit Ka-4. She has also proved other police papers. 14. PW-6 is Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh who conducted the postmortem of all the three dead bodies. He has stated that on 26.02.2009, he was deputed at District Hospital, Chandauli and he conducted postmortem of the three dead bodies. She filed charge sheet also against accused persons which is Exhibit Ka-4. She has also proved other police papers. 14. PW-6 is Dr. Ravindra Nath Singh who conducted the postmortem of all the three dead bodies. He has stated that on 26.02.2009, he was deputed at District Hospital, Chandauli and he conducted postmortem of the three dead bodies. On the body of deceased Preeti following ante-mortem injuries were found:- 1. Lacerated wound on the left side of face. 2. Abrasion 4x3 cm on the front of both knees. 3. Lacerated wound 6x3 cm above 5 cm from the right hand wrist. 4. Lacerated wound 10x4 cm on the scalp, 8 cm above the left ear with swelling around left eye. Internal Examination The fronto-parietal bone of scalp was found broken, brain and brain membranes were lacerated, both kidneys, pleura, peritoneum and both lungs were found pale. According to Doctor, death occurred due to shock and brain hemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem head injuries caused in accident within 12 to 24 hours. He has proved postmortem report as Ext. Ka-5. 15. On the same day postmortem of the dead body of Bindu alias Indu was conducted by the witness and following injuries were found:- 1. Cranial conty was open was open and empty, frontal bone was lacerated, both eye ball was absent. 2. Lacerated wound 5x3 cm in size on face. 3. Lacerated wound 2x2 cm on right ear. 4 & 5. On the right side of chest two contusions of 10x4 and 9x5 cm were found. 6. Contusion 5x2 cm on right cheek. 7. Loosening of upper teeth. 8. Contusion in the area of 60x20 cm on right side of back, on stomach, right side of hip, on the back side of right thigh, all connected with each other. 9. Contusion 10x4 cm on the right thigh and the bone was broken. 10. Contusion 10x4 cm on left hand. 11. to 14. Multiple contusion and abrasion on body, mandible fractured, femur fractured. Internal Examination Frontal bone of scalp and skull found crushed and fractured. Both eye ball found absent. Contusion found on the right side of abdomen in the area of about 10x4 cm. Brain and brain membranes, base of skull were fractured, both kidneys, pleura, peritoneum and both lungs were found pale. Internal Examination Frontal bone of scalp and skull found crushed and fractured. Both eye ball found absent. Contusion found on the right side of abdomen in the area of about 10x4 cm. Brain and brain membranes, base of skull were fractured, both kidneys, pleura, peritoneum and both lungs were found pale. According to Doctor, death occurred due to shock and brain hemorrhage as a result of anti mortem head injuries caused in accident within 12 to 24 hours. He has proved postmortem report as Ext. Ka-6. 16. On the same day, postmortem of dead body of Ravi was conducted and following injuries were found:- 1. Whole of the skull including mandible amputated and missing. 2. Whole of neck lacerated and crushed. 3. Upper limb amputated through shoulder. 4. Lower limb amputated through 10 cm below the knee joint. 5. Lacerated wound found on the right leg 15x10 cm 5 cm below knee, fracture was found. 6. Laceration on waist 10x3 cm on the left side. 7. Multiple small contusion and abrasion on whole body. Internal examination Scalp and skull, membranes, brain and base of skull was damaged as per injury mentioned above. Both kidneys, pleura, peritoneum, pancreas, spleen and both lungs were found pale. According to Doctor, death occurred due to instantaneous anti mortem injuries at neck, vessels and spinal cord caused in accident within 12 to 24 hours. He has proved postmortem report as Ext. Ka-7. 17. PW-6 Dr Ravindra Nath Singh who conducted postmortem has stated that the postmortem of the three dead bodies was done by him in between 3.40 PM to 5 PM and the bodies were brought by GRP, Mughalsarai. Deceased Bindu Devi was aged about 35 years, Preeti of 14 years and Ravi was about 12 years old. Rigor Mortise was present in all the three dead bodies which was indicative of fact that death must have occurred more than 12 hours before and all the injuries found on the dead bodies must have come in a train accident simultaneously and in one go. Semi digested food was found which indicates that they must have taken meals 2 ½ to 3 hours prior to death. 18. Semi digested food was found which indicates that they must have taken meals 2 ½ to 3 hours prior to death. 18. From the reading of the postmortem report, nature of injuries found on the dead bodies and statement of doctor, it is clear that all the three sustained injuries and died due to injuries which must have been caused by a running train, may be accident or otherwise. This is further supported by the inquest reports of dead bodies Ext. Ka-10, Ka-11 and Ka-12, prepared on 26.2.2009 from 9.20 AM to 12.30 PM before five witnesses and all the witnesses and the officer who prepared inquest report were of the view that the deceased persons must have died being hit by train. 19. The prosecution version is that deceased Bindu was being harassed and treated with cruelty by accused persons as they were demanding one lac rupees for repayment of loan taken by her father in law and on the date of incident she was expelled from her matrimonial house after beating by accused persons along with children and provoked by same she committed suicide with her two children. On the other hand, the defence has put a case of denial and has put forward a case of accident alleging that Bindu and her children had gone to her parents on Shivratri festival and while coming back they got trapped as crossing gate was closed and the accident took place by a train resulting in their unfortunate death. It has been also argued that the deceased with her husband and children were living separately from other accused and the family was leading a good and happy family life. Therefore, the issue which was to be determined was whether it was a case of accident or the deceased persons committed suicide and if they committed suicide, whether it has been proved by prosecution that the accused persons provoked and abetted them to commit suicide. 20. Section 306 incorporates the offence of abetment of suicide and the main ingredients of the offence is the suicidal death and abetment thereof. The suicide is an intentional killing of oneself. 20. Section 306 incorporates the offence of abetment of suicide and the main ingredients of the offence is the suicidal death and abetment thereof. The suicide is an intentional killing of oneself. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act provides presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman as below:- "Abetment of suicide by a married woman: When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." 21. Explanation to section 498-A IPC defines cruelty caused on wife by husband or his relatives as follows:- "(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand." 22. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of death Bindu was aged about 35 years and her daughter was about 14 years in age and son was of 12 years in age. Thus, Bindu must have died nearly 15 years of her marriage and as such no presumption will be available under section 113-A of the Evidence Act and the prosecution is required to establish the facts constituting abetment in addition to the fact of commission of suicide by three deceased persons. 23. Thus, Bindu must have died nearly 15 years of her marriage and as such no presumption will be available under section 113-A of the Evidence Act and the prosecution is required to establish the facts constituting abetment in addition to the fact of commission of suicide by three deceased persons. 23. In Ghulam Mustafa vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2015 SC 3101 , the Court held that a casual remark or something said in a routine way or in usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood to mean 'abetment.' A conviction on mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of accused that led a person to commit suicide is not sustainable under section 306 IPC. Again, in Gurucharan vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 74 , it has been held that to constitute the offence under section 306 IPC, there should be a live link between abetment and suicide and the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. So far as the grievance of dowry demand and consequential harassment is concerned, it should not be general in nature and there should be some specific incident and should have provocative capability to drive the deceased to such distressed state, mental and physical that she could elect to end her life. 24. In Nachhatter Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2011) II Cri.LJ 2292 (SC), the court remarked that in case of abetment of suicide by married woman, the cruelty and harassment meted out must be of nature to drive a person of common prudence to commit suicide. Every quarrel between husband and wife which results in suicide cannot be taken to abetment by husband. For abetment, standard of reasonable or practical woman as compared to headstrong and over sensitive one is to be applied. In Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana, AIR 2014 SC 1782 , it was laid down that a woman can commit suicide for various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. Therefore, reasoning that no prudent woman will commit suicide unless abetted by someone is perverse and not sustainable under law. Therefore, reasoning that no prudent woman will commit suicide unless abetted by someone is perverse and not sustainable under law. In Ghulam Mustafa vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2015 SC 3101 , the Court held that a casual remark or something said in a routine way or in usual conversation should not be construed or misunderstood to mean 'abetment.' A conviction on mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of accused that led a person to commit suicide is not sustainable under section 306 IPC. Again, in Gurucharan vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2017 SC 74 , it has been held that to constitute the offence under section 306 IPC, there should be a live link between abetment and suicide and the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. So far as the grievance of dowry demand and consequential harassment is concerned, it should not be general in nature and there should be some specific incident and should have provocative capability to drive the deceased to such distressed state, mental and physical that she could elect to end her life. 25. Though, Gurucharan vs. State of Punjab (supra) was a case based on dowry harassment, the last four lines mentioned in bold letters are still relevant and they require specific incident and not general allegations, having provocative capability to drive the deceased to such distressed state, mental and physical that she could elect to end her life. Routine behaviour, remark or quarrel by husband in matrimonial life in a drunken state cannot be taken to be sufficient to the extent to constitute abetment unless something extra-ordinary, more than normal wear and tear of married life, is shown on or just before the date of incident. The burden of proving close link, in proximity of time between abetment and suicide, heavily lies on prosecution and the prosecution has utterly failed in discharging this burden. 26. Now coming to the facts of this case. Three fact witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. The burden of proving close link, in proximity of time between abetment and suicide, heavily lies on prosecution and the prosecution has utterly failed in discharging this burden. 26. Now coming to the facts of this case. Three fact witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW-2 is the father and informant and from his statement in examination-in-chief, it appears that he has stated that when he went to his daughter Bindu on 22.2.2009, she told about cruelty and harassment by accused persons on account of demand of one lac rupees for repayment of debt and she was so disturb that she wanted to commit suicide. He also stated that he got a report scribed and lodged FIR. When he was put to cross-examination, he disowned his FIR and said that he did not lodge any such FIR nor he signed over it and he does not know who wrote the same and who delivered it to police. He has also stated that her married life was happy and there was no complaint from either side. 27. There is one more aspect in relation to PW-2 which has not been considered by the learned trial court. From the perusal of the statement of PW-2 it appears that his cross-examination was not completed and the same was continued on 29.9.2016 and the case was fixed for remaining cross-examination on 4.11.2016, 7.11.2016, 7.12.2016, 2.2.2017, 18.3.2017, 15.5.2017, 29.6.2017, 17.8.2017, 28.9.2017, 15.11.2017, 28.11.2017, 12.12.2017 and 3.1.2018, but the prosecution did not produce PW-2 for cross-examination during trial, although, other prosecution witnesses were examined. This resulted in the denial of the valuable right of the accused to cross-examine the witness. It has been nowhere mentioned in the order-sheet that the witness was not produced as he was not traceable or had died. It has also not been shown that the opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the court by a specific order to that effect. Moreover, he has himself disowned the FIR and statement of such witness cannot become basis for conviction and if at all such statement could be used, the same may be for the support of other evidence. 28. The main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth and detect falsity in the testimony of a witness. Moreover, he has himself disowned the FIR and statement of such witness cannot become basis for conviction and if at all such statement could be used, the same may be for the support of other evidence. 28. The main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth and detect falsity in the testimony of a witness. According to Powell (Law of Evidence, 10th Edition, 463) the objects of cross-examination are to impeach the accuracy, credibility, general value of the evidence given in-chief, to shift the facts already stated by the witness, to detect and expose discrepancies, or to elicit the suppressed facts which will support the case of the cross-examining party. Phipson (On Evidence, 15th Ed., 2000, para 11-17) has remarked that 'the object of cross-examination is two fold-to weaken, qualify, or destroy the case of the opponent; and to establish the party's own case by means of his opponent witness.' 29. In Dwarka Das vs. State of J&K, 1979 Cri. LJ 550 (J&K), it has been observed that the right of cross-examination is referable not only to section 138 of the Evidence Act but is one of the principles of natural justice that evidence may not be read against a party until the same has not been subjected to cross-examination, or at least an opportunity has not been given for cross-examination. Section 138 impliedly lays down that the statement of a witness would be read as evidence against a party only when it had been tested on the anvil of cross-examination or opportunity was afforded for the purpose. The testimony of a witness is not a legal evidence unless subjected to cross-examination. In Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 and Mohd. Hussain vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2012) 2 SCC 584 , it has been held that the right of cross-examination is included in the right of accused in a criminal case, to confront the witness against him not only on facts but also to discredit the witness by showing that his testimony in-chief was untrue and biased. Failure to provide an opportunity to accused of cross-examination of prosecution witness vitiates the trial. Failure to provide an opportunity to accused of cross-examination of prosecution witness vitiates the trial. In Sunil Mehta vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 9 SCC 209 , it has been further held that in a criminal case, using the testimony of a witness at the trial without giving the accused the opportunity of cross-examination, is tantamount to condemning him unheard. 30. The purpose of the above discussion is to indicate that the evidence of PW-2 cannot form basis for conviction as he was not produced for cross-examination and a very little cross-examination (ten to fifteen lines) which was conducted by the defence, that too demolished the credibility of the witness as he denied that any written report was given and FIR was lodged by him and that he did not know who signed over the same. Moreover, he stated about the good matrimonial life of deceased. It is also pertinent to mention that the witness was not declared hostile. After that little cross-examination, he did not turn up nor he was further produced for cross-examination. 31. PW-3 Siyaram is brother of PW-2 and he claims to be present with him when they visited to the in-laws of the deceased. But the fact that he also accompanied the informant does not find mention in the statement of PW-2. PW-3 has stated in his cross-examination that Bindu used to come to her parents and used to return to her husband after staying a day or two. He has also stated that in his knowledge there was no dispute of any kind between two sides. Very importantly, he has stated that he cannot say whether Bindu and two sons died out of train accident or they committed suicide. He has stated that for the first and last time he went to in-laws of Bindu on 22.2.2009 and nothing was demanded by her in-laws, their stay there was very cordial and Bindu and her children raised no complaints. He says that both the children were born in her laws house and all the arrangements were made by in-laws and they were given usual education by them and daughter was studying in class 9th and son was studying in 7th class. Thus, the statement of this witness does not prove the prosecution version on the point of demand, cruelty and harassment or abetment and he is not sure whether the deceased persons committed suicide. 32. Thus, the statement of this witness does not prove the prosecution version on the point of demand, cruelty and harassment or abetment and he is not sure whether the deceased persons committed suicide. 32. PW-4 Inda, sister of deceased, has stated that the deceased informed her on phone on 25.2.2009 that the accused persons are treating her with cruelty and have committed maar-peet and she will not live there. She informed the same to her father. PW-2 has said nothing about this information in his statement. In the cross-examination, PW-3 Siyaram has said it, but he has been contradicted on this point with reference to his statement recorded by IO in which he has not stated that fact. Then, the information, if any, was given to the father of deceased and not to PW-3. It is also pertinent to mention that the witness has admitted that the deceased and she, both do not have any mobile phone nor prior to incident, they ever talked to each other and there was mobile connectivity between them. Therefore, it is doubtful that the deceased talked to her or she further informed to her father. She has further stated that the deceased and her husband were living separately from other accused her brother in law and his wife and as such, it is highly doubtful how they abetted the deceased. 33. PW-4 Inda has further stated about good and happy married life of deceased as after marriage she used to happily come to her parents whenever she liked and there was no restriction on her. Her two children were studying and they were happy and healthy. The deceased never made any complaints about her husband and in-laws. She has stated that to go to the parents and on coming back to in laws, one has to step over the railway track and after crossing the railway track, another means of travel is to be taken for both sides. She has further stated that there was no complaint to deceased before the accident. She has admitted that because of death of deceased and her children, her father and family became emotional and angry. 34. The statement of PW-5 IO Ms. She has further stated that there was no complaint to deceased before the accident. She has admitted that because of death of deceased and her children, her father and family became emotional and angry. 34. The statement of PW-5 IO Ms. Chandrkranti is very relevant who has stated that during investigation, she found that Munnilal and Dashrath were separated a long back and there was no dues of one lac rupees and this fact was found to be wrong in investigation. She has stated that the deceased persons died out of train accident while crossing the railway track at railway crossing situated at Chandouli-Sakaldiha road in the west of Majhwar railway station. She has also stated that there was no evidence of cruelty and harassment by accused persons for any demand of one lac rupees. She has also stated that witness Siyaram (PW-3) never stated to her about Inda Devi informing him on phone that Bindu has been expelled by accused persons after beating her. Proving Ext. Ka-25, the witness has stated that about the accident GRP Moghulsarai was having prior information and the dead bodies were removed from railway track and were kept near the railway track in front of Police Chowky, Chandouli and from there the dead bodies were taken in possession and proceeding of inquest was conducted. Pw-5 has also stated that none of the witnesses examined by her stated that the deceased persons committed suicide by jumping over the track. She has also stated that it came to her knowledge during investigation that the deceased and her children had gone to her parents 2 to 4 days before prior to accident. It is notable that it has been specific case of defence that the deceased and her children had gone to her parents on the occasion of Maha Shivratri and while returning when trying to cross railway track at the railway crossing they were hit by train and died in accident. The statement of IO supports the defence version and it cannot be ignored nor it can be said that the IO has given false statement for which she had no reason. The learned trial court appears to have adopted a very casual approach in rejecting the statement of IO. If her statement was suffering from infirmity, the benefit in such circumstances should have been given to the accused persons. 35. The learned trial court appears to have adopted a very casual approach in rejecting the statement of IO. If her statement was suffering from infirmity, the benefit in such circumstances should have been given to the accused persons. 35. The two witnesses who have been examined by the defence DW-1 Dharmraj Yadav and DW-2 Indrpal Singh Yadav have stated that the deceased and her children had gone to her parents on Maha Shivratri and while coming back they sustained injuries by train accident when they were crossing the railway track. They have also stated that married life of the deceased was good and cruelty and harassment on her was never heard. Both these witnesses come in relation of Bindu from her maternal side and they have stated that accused Akhand and Sheela got separated and Bindu and her husband used to live with Munnilal. The children of deceased were studying in the Junior High School, Mathela and the deceased had full liberty to go to her parents whenever she wished. There was no complaint of any harassment. When all the three died in accident, her father lodged case out of anger and emotions. A similar statement has been given by PW-4 Inda Devi. 36. In Anil Sharma Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2004) 5 SCC 679 , it has been held that an accused can examine himself u/s. 315 Cr.P.C. as a defence witness and equal treatment should be given to the evidence of prosecution and defence. Standard and parameter for evaluation of evidence is the same whether it is a prosecution witness or defence witness. Unfortunately, the learned trial court has applied different yardstick for evaluation of defence witness and has discarded their testimony on the ground that they have good relations with accused persons and have been brought by accused side to give evidence. If this was a good ground for rejecting their testimony, the prosecution witnesses are closely related with complainant as he is father of the deceased and PW-3 and PW-4 are his brother and daughter. Moreover, the defence witnesses are also relatives of the complainant and as such their testimony assumes greater weight, more so when the prosecution witnesses also have stated in such way that there appears to be greater possibility of deceased dying out of accident. 37. Moreover, the defence witnesses are also relatives of the complainant and as such their testimony assumes greater weight, more so when the prosecution witnesses also have stated in such way that there appears to be greater possibility of deceased dying out of accident. 37. There is one more perspective on the basis of which a conclusion of death by accident finds support. The age of the daughter at the time of incident was about 14 years. PW-1 has stated that the daughter was born after 6-7 years of marriage. PW-2 has stated that after 3-4 years of marriage, her GAUNA (a matrimonial ceremony when the girl for the first time goes to her in-laws) took place. DW-1 and DW-2 have also stated that both were married 20-25 years before. In every case the marriage must have taken place 20 years ago. Therefore, it is not a case of suicide by a young bride. After 20 years of marriage where the matrimonial life of deceased was good and happy as two children were born to her and she had enough freedom and could go to her parents alone and come back, a freedom which is not much seen in village life, more particularly when prosecution has alleged harassment. When the life of deceased was enough settled, it does not suit to reasoning that she could have been in any way abetted to commit suicide. There is no allegation that the children were also put to cruelty or they were also beaten before the incident. They were studying and were leading happy and healthy life. In such case there was no occasion for them to commit suicide. They were aged about 14 and 12 years and in their age, children attain sufficient understanding and it cannot be reasonably believed that they could get prepared to commit suicide merely on saying of their mother. On the contrary, they could check their mother from committing suicide. This is also indicative of an unfortunate accident in which they all lost their lives. 38. There is no principle of law that wherever wife commits suicide, the husband will bear the responsibility and will be held liable. On the contrary, they could check their mother from committing suicide. This is also indicative of an unfortunate accident in which they all lost their lives. 38. There is no principle of law that wherever wife commits suicide, the husband will bear the responsibility and will be held liable. Where marriage of both has passed about 15-20 years, two children were born and both studying in school in a usual way and the family is leading happy life, general allegation of harassment cannot be sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty for the offence of abetment of suicide. It has not been stated by the prosecution witnesses that any demand was made by the accused persons before them or from them. No witness has been examined to show cruelty and harassment with the deceased before the incident or abetment in proximity of time for committing suicide. Postmortem report shows that semi-digested food was found and that indicates that deceased have taken meals and it also falsifies that she was not given food on account of cruelty for pressurizing the demand. The trial court is required to look into all the circumstances of the case and to attract the offence under section 306 IPC, the alleged cruelty, instigation or encouragement by accused should not only be proved by prosecution but also be of such nature which leaves no option to the deceased except to commit suicide. From the evidence on record and attending circumstances as well as postmortem report of dead bodies, a possibility of deceased loosing life due to accident appears to be more probable in comparison to their committing suicide. There is no evidence led by prosecution that there was abetment of such grave nature which was likely to drive them to commit suicide in group. The witnesses of prosecution also do not disclose any serious fact creating a panic situation for all to commit suicide. The prosecution evidence if considered in totality, makes out a case of accident rather than a suicide. 39. On the basis of above discussion, I find that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court suffers from perversity and the impugned judgment is not sustainable under law. 40. The prosecution evidence if considered in totality, makes out a case of accident rather than a suicide. 39. On the basis of above discussion, I find that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court suffers from perversity and the impugned judgment is not sustainable under law. 40. Therefore, all the three appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 07.09.2018, passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Chandauli, in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2012 (State vs. Rakesh Yadav), arising out of Case Crime No. 44 of 2009, under Section 306/34 IPC, Police Station Baluwa, District Chandauli, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 306/34 IPC is set aside and appellants Rakesh Yadav, Akhand Yadav and Sheela Devi are consequently acquitted. 41. Appellants Rakesh Yadav, Akhand Yadav and Sheela Devi be set at liberty forthwith. 42. Office is directed to transmit back the lower court record along with a copy of this judgment for information and necessary compliance.