Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 307 (UTT)

Dhani Ram @ Pappi @ Pappu v. State of Uttarakhand

2024-05-03

PANKAJ PUROHIT

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Pankaj Purohit, J.) : 1. In this appeal, preferred by appellant/accused Dhani Ram, under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., a challenge has been laid to the judgment and order dated 02.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2005 State vs. Dhani Ram, whereby, the said court has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months with fine of Rs.500/- in default in making payment of fine, appellant/accused was directed to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In nutshell, the facts of case are that on 15.05.2004 a report was given by P.W.1 Bharat Mandal at Police Station Rishikesh with the averments that over a period of around two years, he stayed in a house located in Mohalla Mayakund; during the stay on rent at that place, a rumour was spread that his wife was having illicit relationship with the appellant/accused Pappi @ Dhani Ram. Due to belittling of his image, he left that house and began to stay in another house located in Mayakund Rishikesh. After about 15 days’ again the appellant/accused came at the new place of tenancy of informant while he was not present in the house. Even after the persuasion, the appellant/accused did not agree and kept on coming to his house while he went out in connection of his job. On 13.05.2004 when informant had gone to his work at noon, appellant/accused came to his house and stated some harsh words to his wife, which made the wife of informant to commit suicide by hanging herself. It was also stated in the report that on that day, his sister-in-law (Saali) Malti had seen the appellant/accused coming to his house. On the instigation of appellant/accused, the wife of informant committed suicide. With these averments, FIR was lodged. 4. The case was registered at Police Station Rishikesh. The matter was investigated and on completion of investigation a charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC was filed against the accused in the Court. The charge was framed by learned Sessions Judge against the appellant/accused, which he denied and claimed for trial. 5. As many as six witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant/accused. The charge was framed by learned Sessions Judge against the appellant/accused, which he denied and claimed for trial. 5. As many as six witnesses were produced by the prosecution to prove its case against the appellant/accused. They are P.W.1 Bharat Mandal (informant), P.W.2 Km. Malti, P.W.3 Ajeet Kumar, P.W.4 Guddu, P.W.5 S.I. Anjana Negi and P.W.6 S.I. N.D. Thakur. 6. The statement of accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No evidence in defence was produced on his behalf. At the end of trial, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 7. P.W. 1 Bharat Mandal is the informant and husband of the deceased. In his evidence, he reiterated the version of FIR. He has stated that the accused kept on coming to his house in his absence and also had developed illicit relationship with his wife. Even though the accused was persuaded several times but all in vain. Due to this reason, P.W.1 left his house and took another house on rent but the conduct of the appellant/accused was continued and he kept on coming to the new house as well. On 13.05.2004 when he had gone out for his work, he was informed by his father-in-law that his wife committed suicide by hanging herself. On being inquired about the arrival of someone on the spot on the relevant date, his sister-in-law (P.W.2 Malti) informed him that she saw the appellant/accused going inside the house and she also heard the screams of her sister (deceased). 8. The witness P.W.2 Malti, who is the younger sister of deceased. According to her, she had seen the appellant/accused going to the house of her sister several times. Her father and brother-in-law told the appellant/accused several times not to come in the house but he kept on visiting the house of her sister. She further stated that on the relevant date, she was standing outside the house where her sister was residing. On that day, the appellant/accused had gone inside the house of her sister, she heard screams of her sister, they were having conversation for 15-20 minutes. Appellant/accused remained inside the house and then he returned back. About 15-20 minutes thereafter, she went to the house of her sister, but the door was locked from inside. On that day, the appellant/accused had gone inside the house of her sister, she heard screams of her sister, they were having conversation for 15-20 minutes. Appellant/accused remained inside the house and then he returned back. About 15-20 minutes thereafter, she went to the house of her sister, but the door was locked from inside. On pushing the door 2-3 times, the door could be opened and she saw her sister hanging herself with fan and she called her father. 9. P.W.3 Ajeet Kumar, P.W.4 Guddu and P.W.5 S.I. Anjana Negi are the witness of inquest; they are formal witness. 10. P.W. 6 S.I. N.D. Thakur is the Investigation Officer of the case, who conducted the investigation and submit the charges sheet against the accused. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused has vehemently argued that in this matter the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial court has recorded the finding of conviction without any evidence and the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court against the appellant/accused is liable to be struck down. 12. From a careful perusal of the entire oral and documentary evidence, available on record, I am of the view that the case as put forth by the prosecution is not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. First and foremost, there is a delay of about 54 hours in lodging the report. The incident was said to have been taken place on 13.05.2004 and FIR was given to police on 13.05.2004 by Subal Mandal, father of the deceased, but the chick FIR could be lodged on 15.05.2004 at 06:45 p.m. on the subsequent report given by P.W. 1 Bharat Mandal; no plausible or reasonable explanation has been put forth on behalf of the prosecution for the delay, which is fatal for the prosecution. Secondly, there is no proximate nexus between the suicide and the allegations of abetment made against the appellant/accused. 13. According to the prosecution story, the appellant/accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide however no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution, which could prove that the accused had actually abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Secondly, there is no proximate nexus between the suicide and the allegations of abetment made against the appellant/accused. 13. According to the prosecution story, the appellant/accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide however no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution, which could prove that the accused had actually abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is also relevant to mention that P.W.1 Bharat Mandal and P.W.2 Malti, who are husband and sister of deceased respectively, have not stated in any clear words as to what words were used by the accused on the date of occurrence so as to abet the deceased to commit suicide. In this regard, the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 707 Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal is worth relevant to mention, wherein, it was held 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 commit 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.” 14. From the aforesaid evidence, it is not proved whether any cruelty or harassment was meted out to the victim by the appellant/ accused, who had left the victim with no alternative but to commit suicide. There is no direct or indirect incitement proved on record, which abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover, the present case is based upon the fact that the appellant/accused was having illicit relationship with the wife of informant, however, that fact could not be proved by the prosecution by way of any cogent or reliable evidence. It also needs to mention that on 13.05.2004, a first information had been given by the father of deceased (Ex. Moreover, the present case is based upon the fact that the appellant/accused was having illicit relationship with the wife of informant, however, that fact could not be proved by the prosecution by way of any cogent or reliable evidence. It also needs to mention that on 13.05.2004, a first information had been given by the father of deceased (Ex. Ka 1) wherein, it was never stated that his daughter and son-in-law were having no relations and for some reasons his daughter has committed suicide. But, in the second report lodged on 15.05.2004 by P.W.1 Bharat Mandal, husband of the deceased, involvement of the appellant/accused has been narrated. 15. There appears to be material contradiction between these two reports, which made the prosecution story very doubtful. This action is based upon the circumstantial evidence, however, chain of the circumstances to connect the appellant/accused with crime appears to be incomplete. The prosecution could not produce any evidence on record as to the manner or mode of instigation/abetment for commission of suicide by deceased on behalf of the appellant/accused. It has also come in the evidence that P.W.1 had taken certain money from the appellant/accused and the possibility of false implication also cannot be ruled out. 16. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion results into allowing the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated 02.05.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2005 State vs. Dhani Ram is hereby set aside. Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender, his sureties are discharged. Let the trial court record be sent back to the learned trial court concerned, along with a copy of this judgment and order, for necessary information and action.