Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 309 (JK)

State Th. P/S, Ramnagar v. Maya Devi

2021-07-02

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL

body2021
Judgment (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG appearing for the appellant and also gone through evidence recorded in this case. There are three sets of evidence on record. One set is of the official witnesses who have deposed about the Investigation/expert opinion etc. Another set of witnesses are those who have turned hostile. And third set of witnesses are those who are neighbours and relations of the deceased, who deposed that the deceased usually complained about the ill treatment by the accused. 2. Prosecution is required to have produced evidences which would create nexus between the accused and the commission of offences. It is only after such evidence produced that other two sets of witnesses lend support to the credentials of the statement of the witnesses to support prosecution version. A number of witnesses have stated that the deceased usually complained about the ill treatment, she was subjected to by the accused, but opinion of these witnesses are not sure as to how deceased died. Narration of these witnesses have given hearsay version which as per them, they had heard from the deceased. Relatives of the deceased have their own story to tell. 3. PW Thakur Dass deposed that he cannot say as to how deceased died. He says that deceased was not being ill treated by the accused. PW Bano also says that she does not know how deceased died but she says that she heard from the deceased that she had been treated by the accused for bad luck. Similar statement has also been given by PW Beeru Devi. 4. PW Madan Lal deposed that she was told by the deceased that she was blamed by the accused for misfortune which their family was suffering and he thereafter heard that she had died, but how she died, he does not know. PW Asha Devi is a mother of the deceased who has deposed that deceased complained about the ill treatment by her husband and was calling her bad omen for his entire family. The accused was physically assaulting her and ultimately, she died. The dead body was having marks of violence. The relatives of the deceased have narrated a different story. PW Asha Devi (Mother of the deceased) has stated about the presence of the marks of violence on the body of deceased. 5. PW Rattan Singh had also made a similar statement. The accused was physically assaulting her and ultimately, she died. The dead body was having marks of violence. The relatives of the deceased have narrated a different story. PW Asha Devi (Mother of the deceased) has stated about the presence of the marks of violence on the body of deceased. 5. PW Rattan Singh had also made a similar statement. He is the uncle of the deceased. He, however, says that he cannot say as to how she died. PW Shakuntla have also stated about the ill treatment of the deceased by the accused. PW Sandalan Devi have also stated about the ill treatment of the deceased by the accused and PW Sandalan says that accused was blaming her for misfortune, which was being faced by their family. PW Hukam Chand has also stated about the ill treatment of the deceased by the accused. He, further says that there was a mark of violence on neck of the deceased, but he also says that he does not know about the cause of the death of the deceased. 6. From the statement of the witnesses referred above, it is clear that all of them have stated that deceased was complaining about the ill treatment by the accused but they do not know as to how she died. Some of the witnesses undertook to ill treatment to the deceased, saying that there are marks of violence on the body of the deceased. The question which requires consideration is as to whether the allegations, even if taken to be proved, would be sufficient enough to hold accused guilty. In my opinion, such allegations, even if, stated to have been established, are not sufficient enough to hold accused guilty of the offences for which he has been charged. The allegations, that accused was treating her as bad omen for the family, would not be sufficient ground to hold that such treatment to the deceased would amount to abetment to suicide or cruelty. 7. Statement of the witnesses is based upon what was heard, i.e., statement hearsay version of the witnesses and even if, it is believed that such statements are true, these statements would not attract penal action under the provisions of Section 306/498-A RPC. The allegations that accused was treating the deceased as bad omen for the family is not such an issue to lead the house wife to commit suicide. 8. The allegations that accused was treating the deceased as bad omen for the family is not such an issue to lead the house wife to commit suicide. 8. The respondent-accused is the mother-in-law of the deceased for whom these void allegations have been levelled and statement given. There is no evidence to the effect that the husband of the deceased was in any way involved in dispute with the deceased. 9. The deceased was residing in the matrimonial house with her mother-in-law, whereas, her husband is working at Delhi. It appears that the relationship of the deceased was not cordial, but that does not mean that such rival dispute would derive the daughter-in-law (deceased) to commit suicide. In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal 1994 (1) SCC 73 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as: “the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” 10. In this case, which require consideration is that the relatives of the deceased have deposed that there are marks of violence on the body of the deceased which assertion appears to be false. There is no mention of any injury having been found on the body of the deceased except a prick on her foot. In Farad Surat Hall Ext.P-23-III in postmortem report exhibit Ext-PR-26, there is no mention of any injury having been found on the person of deceased. 11. The documentary evidence in the shape of Ext-23-III and postmortem report exhibit Ext-PR-26 falsifies the statement of these witnesses who are the relatives of the deceased regarding the presence of marks of violence on the body of the deceased. 12. 11. The documentary evidence in the shape of Ext-23-III and postmortem report exhibit Ext-PR-26 falsifies the statement of these witnesses who are the relatives of the deceased regarding the presence of marks of violence on the body of the deceased. 12. Story put forth by witnesses who are the close relatives of the deceased is belied. There is no evidence on record which connect the accused with the commission of the crime inasmuch as there is no sufficient evidence those on record produced by the prosecution to establish the charge and hold the accused guilty for commission of offences for which she is charged. 13. I have gone through the evidence on record, the grounds taken in the appeal and after considering the record as discussed above, I do not find any illegality in the order/judgment passed by the Trial Court, whereby, the accused has been acquitted. The appeal is held without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 14. Trial Court record, if summoned/received, be sent down along with copy of this judgement.