Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1689 (RAJ)

Anopa Ram v. State

2022-05-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant and his wife were living separately from the family and their marriage had occurred about three years ago. The allegation is that there were frequent altercation between the deceased-wife and the family members of the appellant, which resulted she committed suicide on 30.06.1992 by jumping in a well. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, in which, regular allegations have been made but the instigation to commit suicide is missing. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on perusal of the site map also, it becomes clear that there was no evidence of any kind of force having been used in the act of committing suicide by any third person. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the father Budha Ram has vehemently submitted of mutual grievance but unless there was a specific finding regarding the instigation for suicide, such evidence could not have culminated into a criminal conviction. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shabbir Hussain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal Crl. No. 7284/2017) on 26.07.2021, relevant portion reads as under:- "In order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPc, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal; reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court 707, relevant portion reads as under:- "12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 of IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 25. We now intend to proceed to find out whether a case under Section 498A IPC is made out against the appellant or not. In the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177 , this Court gave a succinct enumeration of the object and ingredients of Section 498A IPC, when it observed as follows in paras 3 and 17: "3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid "cruelty" which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word "cruelty" as is expressed by the legislatures: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz. (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in terms of Section 498-A. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 17. As regards the core issue as to whether charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are independent of each other and acquittal of one does not lead to acquittal on the other, as noticed earlier, there appears to be a long catena of cases in affirmation thereto and as such further dilation is not necessary neither are we inclined to do so, but in order to justify a conviction under the later provision there must be available on record some material and cogent evidence. Presently, we have on record two inconsistent versions of the brother and the cousin, as such no credence can be attributed thereon -- the documentary evidence (namely, those three letters), in our view, falls short of the requirement of the statute: even on an assumption of the fact that there is no contradiction in the oral testimony available on record, the cousin goes to the unfortunate girl's in-laws' place and requests the husband to treat her well -- at best some torture and a request to treat her well. This by itself would not bring home the charge under Section 498-A. Demand for dowry has not seen the light of day." 27. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. We hereby set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 but uphold the conviction of the appellant under section 498A. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities within 15 days from today to serve out the remaining sentence under Section 498A, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against the appellant in accordance with law. " 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions on the ground that there is sufficient evidence that the deceased was tortured and cruelty was imposed upon her by the family members, and particularly the appellant, which culminated into the so-called act of suicide. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the frequent altercation and reporting of cruelty by the deceased to her parents clearly indicate that there was an instigation on the part of the in-laws. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the frequent altercation and reporting of cruelty by the deceased to her parents clearly indicate that there was an instigation on the part of the in-laws. 8. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material available on record, finds that though there is consistency in the cruelty part in the prosecution witnesses, but the key element of the appellant having abetted the commission of suicide by playing an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide is missing. The precedent law cited by learned counsel for the appellant is applied, as in the present case also though the harassment has been proved but harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide could not be proved. The prolonged disturbance in the matrimony is reflected, however, the immediate instigation is missing. The allegations against the appellant also range from keeping the deceased hungry to the cruelty and harassment, but any such glaring fact is missing, which could connect the appellant immediate commission of suicide amounting to instigation. 9. Thus, in view of the above, the present criminal appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 23.09.1993, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 10. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.