Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 888 (RAJ)

State Of Rajasthan v. Roshan Lal

2022-03-15

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2022
ORDER : 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID – 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant State praying that the present appeal be allowed and that the impugned judgment, dated 28.05.2014, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases) whereby the respondents were acquitted from offences under Sections 306/34 IPC, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused respondents may be punished and sentenced as per the law. 3. The brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State are that the victim, Smt. Sita Devi W/o Mr. Roshanlal, died by hanging herself, and that a complaint was filed by one Mr. Kishanlal at the Police Station, Phalasiya on 28.01.2011 subsequent to which, the deceased victim’s father also submitted a written report alleging that his daughter was harassed, tortured and ousted from her matrimonial home by her in-laws, on demands of dowry. And that, to this extent an F.I.R. was registered against the respondents on 28.4.2011, under Sections 306/34 IPC and after investigation a charge sheet was filed against the respondents. Subsequent to which, the learned Trial Court below after hearing both parties acquitted the respondents. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submits that the learned Court below did not appreciate the evidence placed before it on record, specifically, the testimony given under oath by the P.W. 1, the father of the deceased victim wherein it was categorically stated that the deceased victim’s in–laws harassed and tortured her and subjected her to cruelty in connection with demands to dowry. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Siddaling Vs. The State, through Kalagi Police Station (Criminal Appeal No.1606/2009 decided on 09.08.2018) wherein the following was observed: - “In the case in hand, the witnesses-PW-1, PW-6, PW-10 and PW22 have clearly in their statement stated that the Appellant continued his relation with another woman. The Appellant's illicit relation with another woman would have definitely created the psychological imbalance to the deceased which led her to take the extreme step of committing suicide. The Appellant's illicit relation with another woman would have definitely created the psychological imbalance to the deceased which led her to take the extreme step of committing suicide. It cannot be said that the Appellant's act of having illicit relationship with another woman would not have affected to negate the ingredients of Sections 306 Indian Penal Code. In our considered view, based upon the evidence and also Agreement dated 22nd June, 2002, the High Court has rightly maintained the conviction of the Appellant Under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code. Insofar as the submission of learned Counsel for the Appellant, praying for leniency in the quantum of sentence, we are unable to accept the same. Keeping in view the fact that within four months of her marriage, the deceased-Kavitha has taken the extreme step of putting an end of her life and also within three months of convening the panchayat, the deceased-Kavitha has committed suicide, showing any leniency would be a misplaced one. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view, this is not a fit case for reducing the quantum of sentence of the Appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 6. On the other hand, learned respondents for the respondents submits that the learned Court below has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances and only after a perusal of the evidence placed on the record before it, acquitted the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following judgments:- 7.1 in Ude Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 wherein the following was observed:- “Thus, "abetment" involves a mental process of instigating a person in doing something. A person abets the doing of a thing when: (i) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (ii) he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (iii) he intentionally aids, by acts or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. These are essential to complete the abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s 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 act/s 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. 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 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 Indian Penal Code. 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. 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. 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 eveteasing 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. 7.2 In Gurcharan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “Insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. The State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “Insofar as the possible reason for a young married lady with two minor children committing suicide, in the absence of evidence, conjectures cannot be drawn that she was pushed to take her life, by the circumstances and atmosphere in the matrimonial home. What might have been the level of expectation of the deceased from her husband and in-laws and the degree of her frustration, if any, is not found through any evidence on record. More significantly, wilful negligence by the husband could not be shown by the prosecution. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Sec 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. However, what transpires in the present matter is that both the Trial Court as well as the High Court never examined whether appellant had the mens rea for the crime, he is held to have committed. The conviction of Appellant by the Trial Court as well as the High Court on the theory that the woman with two young kids might have committed suicide, possibly because of the harassment faced by her in the matrimonial house, is not at all borne out by the evidence in the case. Testimonies of the PWs do not show that the wife was unhappy because of the appellant and she was forced to take such a step on his account. The necessary ingredients for the offence under section 306 IPC was considered in the case SS Chheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 where explaining the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:- “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190 where explaining the concept of abetment, Justice Dalveer Bhandari wrote as under:- “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 8. Heard learned counsel for both parties and, perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar. 9. This Court observes that the learned Court below passed the impugned order, dated 28.05.2014, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the offence under Section 306/34 IPC, after duly considering the evidence on the record and the testimony given by the witnesses, that the respondent no. 1-the husband of the deceased victim maintained her well and that their marriage was a happy marriage that lasted about 13 years. And that, the deceased victim was also suffering from stomach ailments and excessive menstrual bleeding, from the past 14/15 years for which the respondent no. 1 was ensuring that she received medical treatment and that, the same were the causes of her death by suicide. Furthermore, the Court found that there was no evidence substantiating the claim that the respondent no. 1 harassed or tortured the deceased victim with any demand for dowry. 10. This Court takes note of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited above. In Siddaling (supra) the question before the Hon’ble Apex Court was that of leniency in quantum of sentence in a case where a conviction was already made, and is therefore not applicable to the present case. 10. This Court takes note of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited above. In Siddaling (supra) the question before the Hon’ble Apex Court was that of leniency in quantum of sentence in a case where a conviction was already made, and is therefore not applicable to the present case. In Ude Singh (supra) and Gurcharan Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Court observed that for the offence of abetment of suicide there must be proven against the accused an act, direct or indirect, done to instigate or to incite the victim to commit suicide, and that the evidence and proofs must be established to that extent. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the prosecution has completely failed to show or indicate any instigation on the part of the present respondents and nor have they been attributed with any kind of conspiracy or intentionally aiding the suicide. There is also nothing on record to show that the respondents provoked / incited / urged or persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly indicates that a mere matrimonial conflict cannot be said to be an instigation if it is not directly related to the suicide. 12. This Court, in light of the above made observations, keeping in mind the present facts and circumstances of the case and the lack of evidence against the respondents and the testimony of the witnesses that are in favour of the acquittal of the respondents, does not find a case to be made out warranting any interference by this Court. 13. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.