Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 399 (JK)

State of J&K v. Ved Parkash

2023-08-14

VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 29.11.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, ( for brevity ‘trial Court’) in case titled State vs. Ved Parkash alias Sanju vide which, respondent-Ved Parkash has been acquitted of the charges under Section 306 RPC in FIR No. 49/2010 of Police Station, Ramnagar. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 12.03.2009 information was received by Police Station, Ramnagar that a dead body of a woman was hanging on a tree which is that of one Shakuntia Devi, aged 25 years W/o Ved Parkash R/o Shatiyari, Ramnagar. The dead body was brought by the family members of the deceased to their home. Police came to know about this occurrence and proceeded under Section 174 CrPC. Mr. Javed Akhtar Inspector visited the spot and took the photographs and sent the dead body for post mortem and prepared the Farad Surate-hall of the deceased. He seized the plastic rope about 5 feet long which was produced by Ved Parkash. Site plan was prepared. Hair clip of the deceased was also seized. The clothes of the dead body were seized by Police Station, Ramnagar. As per the investigation conducted by the Sr. Superintendent it was found that the deceased was married to the accused-respondent according to the Hindu customs. Their relation was normal and cordial. The accused-respondent was harassing the deceased-Shakuntla Devi and he used to have drinks and would not permit her to visit her parental abode. The accused-respondent was in relations with some woman and due to the said extra marital affair the relations between the spouses became bitter and the deceased was forced to commit suicide because of such cruelty, which was perpetrated upon her by the accused-respondent herein. 3. On this aforesaid report, case under Section 306 RPC under FIR No. 49/2010 was registered. 4. After investigation a challan for the offences punishable under Section 306 was filed against the respondent before the Sub-Judge, Ramnagar, wherefrom the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udhampur. The accused-respondent was charged by the trial Court for offences under Section 306 RPC, whereby he pleaded innocence and claimed trial, promoting the trial Court to ask for the prosecution evidence. 5. Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy. The accused-respondent was charged by the trial Court for offences under Section 306 RPC, whereby he pleaded innocence and claimed trial, promoting the trial Court to ask for the prosecution evidence. 5. Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy. A. G argued that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence and evidence so produced establishes the charge beyond doubt, but the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned order of acquittal which is required to be set aside and convict the respondent-accused, as there is sufficient evidence to prove commission of offence. 6. Mr. R. K. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has primarily submitted that no case is made out against the respondent as the allegations and the material collected during investigation and evidence produced during trial, do not show that there was any act done by the respondent vis-à-vis the deceased. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the material evidence on record. 8. The prosecution in order to prove the charges relied upon the statements of the following witnesses; Bansi Lal, father of the deceased has stated That 7-8 years before the marriage of his daughter took place with the accused-respondent herein and he was informed on the day of the occurrence that his daughter had died. He took 5-6 persons with him and went to the house of the accused where he saw the dead body of his daughter kept in the kitchen. He found the marks around-his neck and village people told him that she has committed suicide by hanging. He stated that deceased told him that her husband was given to drinking and he had illicit relation with one woman and he was residing with that woman and he did not now like her and because of the same fact that he was constant to commit suicide. In cross examination he stated that the deceased-Shakuntla Devi used to remain perturbed, and there was dispute or quarrel in his presence. In cross-examination he further stated that he did not have any suspicion for the accused and relation between them was normal. To the same extent is the statement of Guddu Devi, mother of the deceased-Shakuntla Devi. In cross examination he stated that the deceased-Shakuntla Devi used to remain perturbed, and there was dispute or quarrel in his presence. In cross-examination he further stated that he did not have any suspicion for the accused and relation between them was normal. To the same extent is the statement of Guddu Devi, mother of the deceased-Shakuntla Devi. PW Baldev Singh has stated that on the date of occurrence he accompanied the complainant to the house of the accused where he found the dead body or the deceased was lying in the kitchen. He stated that deceased- Shakuntla Devi and accused-respondent herein were living happily and there was no discord between them. PW Vijay Kumar uncle of the deceased has stated that on 12.03.2008 he was informed that deceased had been killed. Her dead body was lying in the house of her in laws and same was bearing mark of ligature around her neck and she had been hanged. His younger sister told him that Shakuntia had come on the shop and he recognized her and he called her and her physical condition was good at that time. PW Trilik Nath has stated that deceased died 4 years before and 16-17 years contracted the marriage. When she was enquired she told that her in-laws have restrained her to go home to attend the 4 years Barsi of her grandmother. No further statement was given by her. Dr. Zakir Hussain who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased and who found that deceased was died due to the Asphyxia and there was ligature mark around her neck which was well formed in front of above Pomum Admi and right side of the neck and the margins of the ligature marks were ecchymosed. It has also stated that the deceased had fracture of thyroid bone with dislocation of C2 vertebra and deceased died due to asphyxia. 9. It is settled principle of law that the judgment of acquittal cannot be disturbed by the Appellate Court unless the same is found to be perverse. It has also to be seen that as to whether there is any perversity in the judgment of acquittal. In case any infirmities or perversities are found in the judgment on re-appreciation of the evidence, then this Court can set aside the judgment of acquittal. 10. It has also to be seen that as to whether there is any perversity in the judgment of acquittal. In case any infirmities or perversities are found in the judgment on re-appreciation of the evidence, then this Court can set aside the judgment of acquittal. 10. In the context of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, the trial court has also rightly observed that the evidence regarding the instigation, abetment and perpetration of violence physical, mental are insufficient, weak which is not sufficient to bring home the guilt against the accused-respondent herein. Further the trial Court has rightly observed that merely having extra marital affair is not the factor for the laws to satisfy the ingredient that the accused-respondent instigated/incited the deceased for taking the extreme act. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2010 SC 1446 had an occasion to deal with the aspect of abetment. In the said case Supreme Court has opined that there should be an intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the accused. It was further held that it is impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula dealing with the cases of suicide and each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. 12. In the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal , (2010) 1 SCC 707 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court in order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 , IPC , has held as under:- “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. 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 there 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. In order to bring a case within the purview 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 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." 13. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported as (2017) 1 SCC 433 , the Supreme Court observed as under: "21. It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituent would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.” 14. Again, in M. Arjunan v. State (Represented by Its Inspector of Police) reported as (2019) 3 SCC 315 , the Supreme Court elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following manner: “7. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.” 14. Again, in M. Arjunan v. State (Represented by Its Inspector of Police) reported as (2019) 3 SCC 315 , the Supreme Court elucidated the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following manner: “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the 15. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that the prosecution has not made it clear in what way the accused-respondent herein was harassing or ill-treating deceased-Shakuntla Devi. The father and mother of the deceased-Shakuntla Devi have stated that accused-respondent was having extra marital affair, however, they have not attributed any act of instigation to the accused-respondent. The statement of the uncle of the deceased, namely, Vijay Kumar was recorded after 7-8 months of the occurrence. The other prosecution witnesses have given the statement of the general nature stating that the accused-Ved Parkash wanted to contract second marriage and was going to Delhi. 16. The Trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record found number of infirmities and ultimately held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case and acquitted the accused-respondents herein. 17. Further, the learned trial Court has properly and objectively considered the evidence to reach a conclusion that the accused-respondent was not guilty of the offences charged. The crucial and necessary ingredients that deceased-Shakuntla Devi was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused-respondent has not been established. Under these circumstances the impugned judgment is unassailable. It does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur calls for no interference by this Court in this appeal. 19. Under these circumstances the impugned judgment is unassailable. It does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.11.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur calls for no interference by this Court in this appeal. 19. In the result, this appeal fails. It is hereby dismissed.