Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 62 (UTT)

Narendra Lal v. State of Uttaranchal

2022-03-25

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2022
JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Present appeal is preferred against conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC, recorded on 17.12.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2004, State vs. Narendra Lal by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag. The appellant has been sentenced as hereunder: (i) Under Section 498A IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a further period of three months. (ii) Under Section 306 IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 6,000/- fine. In default of payment of fine, imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. Deceased Susheela Devi and appellant were married six months prior to lodging of the FIR. The FIR has been lodged on 14.05.2004 by PW-1 Shyam Lal, the father of the deceased. According to the FIR, on 13.04.2004, the deceased had visited her father’s house. She had revealed it to her father that the appellant and her in-laws are demanding Rs. 50,000/- for purchasing a vehicle. Since PW-1, Shyam Lal had already spent the money, which he had received by selling some of his property, he could not meet the demand raised by the appellant and his family members. The deceased returned to her in-laws house without money. She was further harassed. On 12.05.2004, PW-1 Shyam Lal was informed that the deceased had committed suicide. 3. Based on the report, an offence under Sections 498A and 304B IPC was lodged against the appellant and his parents. Prior to it, on 12.05.2004, inquest of the deceased was conducted. The witnesses to the inquest had opined that the deceased committed suicide. On 13.05.2004, postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted. According to the doctors, the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. After investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC was submitted against the appellant. 4. On 01.10.2004, charge under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC was framed against the appellant. To which, he denied and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses namely PW-1, Shyam Lal, PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi, PW-3 Shivraj Lal, PW-4 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, PW-5 Km. Mamta, PW-6 Dr. M.S. Bhandari and PW-7 Mr. Nandan Singh Nagnayal. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses namely PW-1, Shyam Lal, PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi, PW-3 Shivraj Lal, PW-4 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, PW-5 Km. Mamta, PW-6 Dr. M.S. Bhandari and PW-7 Mr. Nandan Singh Nagnayal. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”). According to the appellant, he and deceased had love marriage. He never demanded money. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in his defence. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant has not been convicted under Section 304-B. He has been convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by it, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would submit that FIR is much delayed; it is after thought, lodged with legal consultation. Learned Senior Counsel also raised the following points in his submissions: (i) According to the prosecution, PW-1 Shyam Lal had sold some property for Rs. 70,000/- and it is, thereafter, the appellant had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him for purchasing of a vehicle. But, it is argued that there is no evidence which may even show that any property was ever sold by PW-1 Shyam Lal. (ii) There is no evidence to reveal that the appellant, in any manner, harassed or tortured the deceased. Reference has been made to the statements of PW-1 Shyam Lal, PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi and PW-5 Km. Mamta. (iii) Both the parties were poor. There is no question of any demand of dowry. (iv) The marriage between the appellant and the deceased was love marriage. (v) The appellant in no manner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. (vi) Deceased was pregnant with 7-8 months. She was married for about 6 months. It might be a reason for her to commit suicide. (vii) There are great contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. 8. It is argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case. It is the case that the appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charge. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that within such six months of the marriage, the deceased committed suicide. The death is other than under normal circumstances. It is the case that the appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charge. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that within such six months of the marriage, the deceased committed suicide. The death is other than under normal circumstances. There are specific allegations of demand of dowry. PW-1 Shyam Lal, PW-2 Jasdae Devi and PW-5 Km. Mamta have proved it. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 10. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 306, 498A IPC. Section 306 IPC provides for punishment for abetment of suicide. It is as hereunder: “306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. The word “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC, it is as hereunder: “107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who: First - Instigates any person to do that thing. Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing. Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1 - A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.” 12. A bare perusal of the above reveals that abetment may be committed by the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. Therefore, in order to prove the offence under Section 306 IPC, first and foremost, it has to be established and proved that the appellant instigated or conspired or intentional aided the deceased to commit suicide. 13. In the case of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court expounded the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and the factors that should be taken into consideration in determining, as to whether the cause falls within Section of 306 IPC. The Hon’ble Court observed as hereunder: “16. 13. In the case of Ude Singh and others vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court expounded the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and the factors that should be taken into consideration in determining, as to whether the cause falls within Section of 306 IPC. The Hon’ble Court observed as hereunder: “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of the accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased. 16.2. We may also observe that human mind could be affected and could react in myriad ways; and impact of one's action on the mind of another carries several imponderables. Similar actions are dealt with differently by different persons and so far a particular person's reaction to any other human's action is concerned, there is no specific theorem or yardstick to estimate or assess the same. Even in regard to the factors related with the question of harassment of a girl, many factors are to be considered like age, personality, upbringing, rural or urban set-ups, education, etc. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.” 14. Even the response to the ill action of eve teasing and its impact on a young girl could also vary for a variety of factors, including those of background, self-confidence and upbringing. Hence, each case is required to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances.” 14. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced of the charge under Section 498A IPC, which is as hereunder: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means: (a) any wilful 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. (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.” 15. PW-1 Shyam Lal, is the father of the deceased. He has lodged the FIR. According to this witness, the appellant and the deceased, both were in love. He was reluctant to marry the deceased with the appellant but, the deceased finally succeeded in persuading this witness. Sometime, in the month of November, 2003, both the appellant and the deceased married. 16. According to PW-1 Shyam Lal, for three months after marriage, the appellant was in very good relationship with the deceased. In the meanwhile, the appellant came to know that this witness had sold some property, therefore, he demanded Rs. 50,000/- from this witness for purchasing a vehicle but, this demand could not be met. Thereafter, the appellant went to Gujarat. Back in the home, according to PW-1 Shyam Lal the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased started maarpeet with the deceased. The deceased was beaten up by her father-in-law and mother-in-law on 12.04.2004. On 13.04.2004, the deceased came to her father’s house. On 29.04.2004, the appellant straightway came to the house of this witness from Gujarat. Back in the home, according to PW-1 Shyam Lal the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased started maarpeet with the deceased. The deceased was beaten up by her father-in-law and mother-in-law on 12.04.2004. On 13.04.2004, the deceased came to her father’s house. On 29.04.2004, the appellant straightway came to the house of this witness from Gujarat. In the night of 30.04.2004, the appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- from this witness or else threatened that he would leave the deceased. On 01.05.2004, the appellant took the deceased to his house. Thereafter, on 12.05.2004, this witness got the information about the death or suicide committed by the deceased. He went to her in-laws house. By the time, this witness reached there, according to him, the Revenue Inspector had sealed the dead body. He lodged the report (Ex. A1). 17. PW-2 Jasdae Devi is the mother of the deceased, PW-5 Km. Mamta is sister of the deceased, they have also stated about the demand of Rs. 50,000/- and tried to corroborate the statement of PW-1 Shyam Lal. 18. PW-3 Shivraj Lal initially took the investigation. PW-4 Jagdish Prasad Gairola is also an Investigating Officer. He prepared site plan, inquest of the deceased and forwarded the body for postmortem. This witness also recovered a chunni/dupatta of the deceased from the place of occurrence. He took it into custody. This witness has proved all these documents and articles. 19. PW-6 Dr. M.S. Bhandari conducted postmortem of the body on 13.05.2004. He noted the following on the body: (i) Average built. (ii) Rigor Mortis absent in both upper and lower limbs. (iii) Foul smelling present. (iv) Abdomen distended. (v) Blisters present all over the body. (vi) Peeling of skin at places. (vii) Hairs comes out on pulling. (viii) Uterus with feotus and umblical cord expelled out. Length of total 42 cm. Aged about 7 to 8 months. (ix) Both eyes closed. (x) Reddish discharge from both nostrils tricking towards left side. (xii) Reddish discharge from the mouth trickling towards left side. 20. According to PW-6, Dr. M.S. Bhandari he also noted ligature marks as follows: “(i) Ligature mark measuring 29 cm x 1 cm between the chin and hyoid bone.........” 21. The cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 22. PW-7 Nandan Singh Nagnayal is the final Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 23. M.S. Bhandari he also noted ligature marks as follows: “(i) Ligature mark measuring 29 cm x 1 cm between the chin and hyoid bone.........” 21. The cause of death has been opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem injuries. 22. PW-7 Nandan Singh Nagnayal is the final Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant. 23. It is true that FIR is not prompt. The death took place on 12.05.2004. The Revenue Police had started preparing inquest report, etc. on that day but, the report was lodged on 14.05.2004. In FIR, at serial number 5, it is recorded that when the informant visited Revenue Police Station on 12.05.2004, the Revenue Inspector was not there, he had gone for postmortem. But, PW-1 Shyam Lal has in evidence stated that when he reached in the house of appellant, the Revenue Inspector had sealed the body. He had seen the sealed body. This statement of PW-1 Shyam Lal, who is the informant also, is contrary to para 5 of the FIR. According to the FIR, PW-1 Shyam Lal could not meet the Revenue Inspector on 12.05.2004, when he went to lodge the report. Whereas, according to the statement of PW-1 Shyam Lal on 12.05.2004 itself, he had seen dead body in the house of the appellant, which was sealed by the Revenue Inspector. 24. In the cases like instant one, it is not always expected that FIR may be prompt. After all, death of a dear one, under such circumstances, may shake a person. The family members may take some time to consolidate and decide the course of action to be followed. But, in the instant case on the one hand, according to the FIR, the informant had gone to lodge the report but, he did not find the Revenue Inspector. On the other hand PW-1 Shyam Lal tells in the court that he had met the Revenue Inspector in the appellant’s house where the Revenue Inspector had sealed the body. The explanation for delay as given in the FIR has not been substantiated by PW-1 Shyam Lal in court. It is not the case of prosecution that the informant took time for reflection before lodging the report. Its effects will have to be examined. It, in fact, touches upon the credibility of the statement of PW-1 Shyam Lal. 25. The explanation for delay as given in the FIR has not been substantiated by PW-1 Shyam Lal in court. It is not the case of prosecution that the informant took time for reflection before lodging the report. Its effects will have to be examined. It, in fact, touches upon the credibility of the statement of PW-1 Shyam Lal. 25. PW-1 Shyam Lal has not stated even a single sentence that the appellant ever harassed or tortured the deceased. According to this witness, the appellant and the deceased were in good relationship for about three months after marriage. Thereafter, since he had sold some property for Rs. 70,000/- the appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him, for purchasing a vehicle, which this witness did not give. But, it is not stated by PW-1 Shyam Lal that for this reason the appellant ever harassed the deceased or he ever asked the deceased to get the money from her parents. PW-1 Shyam Lal says that thereafter, appellant had gone to Gujarat. The father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased harassed and tortured her. On 29.04.2004, the appellant visits the house of this witness straightway from Gujarat. On 30.04.2004, he demands Rs. 50,000/- from this witness. But, again it is not the case that, the appellant, in any manner, did any cruelty to the deceased. 26. Demand for money on account of some financial exigency may not in all cases be considered as demand for dowry. In the case of Appasaheb and Another vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. But, subsequently, in the case of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 , this proposition has been not followed in strict sense. But, subsequently, in the case of Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 , this proposition has been not followed in strict sense. In the case of Rajinder Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “We, therefore, declare that any money or property or valuable security demanded by any of the persons mentioned in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at or before or at any time after the marriage which is reasonably connected to the death of a married woman, would necessarily be in connection with or in relation to the marriage unless, the facts of a given case clearly and unequivocally point otherwise.” The proposition of law, as laid down in the case of Rajinder Singh (supra), has been referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jatinder Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2020) 16 SCC 721 . 27. In the instant case, it has to be seen, as to whether the appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- from PW-1 Shyam Lal for purchasing of a vehicle and if it is so, is it reasonably connected to the death of the deceased? The part of cruelty has to be seen. 28. As stated, PW-1 Shyam Lal has not stated even one word that for the demand of dowry, the appellant harassed or treated the deceased with cruelty. PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi has also stated that it is the appellant, who had demanded Rs. 50,000/- but, she has also not stated that the appellant ever harassed or committed cruelty to the deceased. On the one hand, according to the PW-1, Shyam Lal the deceased and the appellant had good relations for three months after marriage, on the other hand, in her examination in paragraph 3, PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi has stated that from the date of marriage itself, the deceased was harassed. PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi also speaks that 2-3 months after marriage, the appellant had gone Gujarat and from there straightway, he visited their house. 29. PW-5 Km. Mamta has stated that 2-4 months after marriage, both the deceased and the appellant were happily staying together. PW-5 Km. Mamta has also not stated that the appellant had ever harassed or tortured the deceased. According to this witness also, when the appellant went Gujarat, the deceased was ill-treated by her mother-in-law and father-in-law. 30. 29. PW-5 Km. Mamta has stated that 2-4 months after marriage, both the deceased and the appellant were happily staying together. PW-5 Km. Mamta has also not stated that the appellant had ever harassed or tortured the deceased. According to this witness also, when the appellant went Gujarat, the deceased was ill-treated by her mother-in-law and father-in-law. 30. Prosecution could have adduced evidence to establish that, in fact, PW-1 Shyam Lal had sold any property and received Rs. 70,000/- as stated by him. It would have been an occasion, as told by PW-1 Shyam Lal, for the appellant to demand money from him. But, there is no corroborative evidence to that fact that, PW-1 Shyam Lal had received Rs. 70,000/- from some sale transaction done by him. 31. Even for the shake of arguments, if it is assumed, that the appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- from PW-1 Shyam Lal, it is not the prosecution case that for this demand, the appellant ever harassed or tortured the deceased. It may be a simple case of seeking financial help. The demand was allegedly made from PW-1 Shyam Lal. This demand has no connection with the death of the deceased. It is not the prosecution case that since money was not paid, the appellant harassed, tortured and drawn the deceased to commit suicide. As stated, the alleged demand has no connection with the death of the deceased. 32. PW-1 Shyam Lal says that he had seen body of the deceased when it was sealed by the Revenue Inspector. According to him, they were informed about the death of the deceased. PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi, in last, but one paragraph of the examination-in-chief would submit that they were told that the deceased was sick and when they reached the appellant’s village, they found the body of the deceased hanging from a tree. Thereafter, they returned. It is not the case in the FIR, it is not so told by PW-1 Shyam Lal. 33. According to PW-5 Km. Mamta, on 12.05.2004, they were informed that the deceased is sick, thereafter, this witness and her mother PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi visited the appellant’s house. In his house, they found broken bangles in her room. While returning, they spotted a crowd and then could see that the deceased was hanging from a tree. PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi has not told about the broken bangles. In his house, they found broken bangles in her room. While returning, they spotted a crowd and then could see that the deceased was hanging from a tree. PW-2 Smt. Jasdae Devi has not told about the broken bangles. PW-1 has not stated that he was informed about illness of the deceased instead according to him, he was told that the deceased had committed suicide. There are contradictions on material points which gains significance. 34. In the instant case, prosecution has not been able to even show, as to how the appellant has instigated, conspired or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. He was in Gujarat. According to the witnesses, he was having good relationship with the deceased when he left for Gujarat. He did not harass or torture the deceased. He did not demand any money from the deceased. The alleged demand which the appellant had made from PW-1 Shyam Lal, has no connection with the death of the deceased. 35. In view of it, this Court is of the view that, in fact, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Sections 306 and 498A IPC against the appellant. The appellant ought to have been acquitted of the charge. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 36. The appeal is allowed. 37. The impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2004, State vs. Narendra Lal, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. 38. The appellant is on bail. His bonds cancelled and sureties are discharged of their liability. But, the appellant shall furnish a personal bond and two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned under Section 437A of the Code within a period of one month from today. 39. Let a copy of the judgment alongwith the record of the case be sent to the court concerned.