Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1919 (PNJ)

Renu v. State of Haryana

2021-12-10

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2021
Judgment Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. The bail applicant No. 1 (Renu) is the legally wedded wife of deceased one Tinku. The bail applicant No. 2 (Balwan Singh) is the father-in-law of the deceased, and, the bail applicant No. 3 (Angrejo), is the mother-in-law of the deceased. During the course of the marital relations, inter se, co-petitioner No. 1 and deceased – Tinku, certain quarrels erupted amongst them. It is apparent on a reading of Annexure P-2, that in respect of one of the wrangles, which occurred amongst co-petitioner No. 1, and, the deceased / husband, the former made a report on 17.11.2019, to the SHO, Sector-4, Gurugram, wherein allegations are made against Tinku qua the latter taking to abuse her, and, also taking to perpetrate acts of domestic violence upon her. However, the afore reporting, rather resulted in a compromise being drawn among co-petitioner No. 1 with deceased-Tinku. Subsequently, also there was domestic strife in the marital ties of bail applicant No. 1, and, her deceased – husband. The result of the afore domestic strife, was that on 03.02.2020, deceased Tinku at about 11.15 a.m. rather entered, in a state of intoxication, the women cell concerned. On the asking of police official present there, the afore Tinku (deceased) replied that since his wife / co-bail applicant No. 1, had made a complaint against him, at Women Cell, Panipat, hence, he had consumed poison. Thereafter SI Narender proceeded to take Tinku to hospital in an official car, and, treatment was afforded to him, at Civil Hospital Panipat. Thereafter, he was referred to Government Hospital, PGI, Khanpur. The FSL reports suggests, that the demise of Tinku occurred on account of his consuming poisoning. 2. Moreover, it is also brought to the notice of this Court, by the learned State Counsel, that bail applicant No. 1 had made a complaint, to the police authorities with respect to her deceased-husband consuming poisoning. The complaint resulted in an FIR being became drawn by the police authorities, constituting therein an offence, under Section 309 of the IPC, against the afore Tinku. However, it appears that Tinku on the date subsequent to the lodging of the afore FIR, succumbed to the ill effect of poison becoming consumed by him. 3. The learned State Counsel, resists the making of absolute the earlier order of 25.05.2021, hence granting ad interim bail to the bail petitioners. However, it appears that Tinku on the date subsequent to the lodging of the afore FIR, succumbed to the ill effect of poison becoming consumed by him. 3. The learned State Counsel, resists the making of absolute the earlier order of 25.05.2021, hence granting ad interim bail to the bail petitioners. He submits that since immediately prior to the afore deceased – Tinku consumed poison, he held a conversation with one Balwan Singh, his father-in-law, and, he further submits, that as the afore conversation has been captured, in a pen drive, and, upon it being sent to the laboratory concerned, the transcript thereof, become retrieved therefrom. He submits that, the transcript reveals that on account of harassment and humiliation meted to him by the bail petitioners, his being instigated to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned State Counsel, argues that prima facie hence the accused / bail petitioners, have abetted to commission of suicide by the deceased – Tinku. He also argues that the telephonic conversation (as happened) immediately prior to the deceased – Tinku committing suicide, constitutes his dying declaration, and, that hence the facility of bail be not granted to the petitioners. 4. Even though, there occurred quarrels amongst the concerned, in the apposite marital ties. However, the mere occurrences of day-to-day quarrels during the course of marital ties, cannot per se, be construed to be either potent nor so coercive, so to instil, in the victim, a deep pervasive trauma, leading him to commit suicide nor the accused can be clothed with the required penally inculpable, mens rea, unless evidence is brought forth, and, is suggestive, that the wrangles in the domestic life of co-bail petitioner No. 1 and her deceased – husband, one Tinku, assumed an aggravated scale, as to cause the etchings of deepest trauma in the mind of the deceased. However, the evidence, as adduced before this Court by the State, is not suggestive, that the domestic strife, which prevailed in the marital ties of the concerned, reached or arrived at an escalated stage or a hyper level scale, Where through, rather the utmost excruciating trauma, became encumbered in the mindset of the deceased – Tinku. Contrarily, there are only evidences of normal day-to-day quarrels / strifes, rather occurring in the marital ties amongst the concerned. Contrarily, there are only evidences of normal day-to-day quarrels / strifes, rather occurring in the marital ties amongst the concerned. Obviously, they cannot prima facie at this stage be construed to be constituting potent instigatory factors, for the deceased, hence committing suicide nor prima facie at this stage, the bail petitioners can be construed to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased – Tinku. 5. Though the afore occurring conversation, inter se, the father-in-law of deceased – Tinku, happened immediately prior to the fateful occurrence, and, may comprise a dying declaration, within the ambit of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act. 6. However, qua the afore electronic record, the requisite certification in terms of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, is rather not submitted to be made, by the learned State Counsel, hence by the service provider concerned. Therefore, prima facie at this stage, it does not assume an aura of credible evidence, of immense evidentiary creditworthiness. Even otherwise, since as afore stated, the normal day-to-day happenings of routine quarrels, in the day-to-day married life of the married partners concerned, as has extantly happened, for reasons (supra), in the married life of deceased - Tinku, and, co-bail petitioner(s), are neither sufficient nor constitute the requisite potent instigatory factors, for prima facie an offence under Section 306 of the IPC, being made out against the accused concerned. 7. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit to order the custodial interrogation of the bail petitioners, more so, when it is stated at the Bar by the learned State Counsel, that the petitioners are cooperating in the investigation(s), and, also when there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution that at this stage, in the event of the bailapplicants being enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of theirs fleeingfrom India, and, or, tampering with prosecution evidence. 8. Consequently, this Court is constrained to make absolute the order made by this Court on 25.05.2021. However, the making absolute of the afore order shall be subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Any observation made hereinabove is in respect of the disposal of the instant petition, and, shall not taken to be any observation on the merits of the case. 10. Disposed of.