Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 931 (HP)

Jagdish Chand v. State of H. P.

2025-05-06

RAKESH KAINTHLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.06.2010 and order of sentence dated 28.06.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellants (accused before learned Trial Court) wereconvicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced as under:- Sl. No. Offence Sentence imposed i) Under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC Both the convicted persons are sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.7500/- each, and in default of the payment of the fine, the convicted persons shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. ii) Under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC Both the convicted persons are sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.7500/- each, and in default of the payment of the fine, the convicted persons shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.) 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It was asserted that Meera Devi (since deceased) was married to Raj Kumar in March 2003 as per Hindu rites and customs. She started telling her father Amar Singh (PW-2) informant, that her father-in-law Jagdish Chand and mother-in-law Jambo Devi were harassing her on trivial matters. Her husband, Rajkumar, was residing at Ludhiana. She called the informant on 21.04.2007 and told him that Jagdish Chand and Jambo Devi were quarrelling with her. The informant replied that he would settle the matter on the next day by visiting her matrimonial home, however, Meera Devi committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance during the night. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PW-8/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Kamal Chand (PW-8) visited the spot to verify the correctness of the information. The matter was reported to the police. An entry (Ext.PW-8/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Kamal Chand (PW-8) visited the spot to verify the correctness of the information. He recorded the statement (Ext.PW8/B) of Amar Singh (PW-2) and sent it to the Police Station through Constable Surjeet Kumar. F.I.R. (Ext.PW-7/A) was registered at the Police Station. SI Kamal Chand (PW-8) conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared reports (Ext.PW-8/C and Ext.PW-8/D). He filed an application (Ext.PW-8/C) for conducting the post- mortem examination of the deceased. Dr. Tilak Bhagra (PW-9) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and found no external injuries on the dead body. He preserved the viscera and handed it over to the police official, who accompanied the dead body. He issued his report (Ext.PW-9/A).SI Kamal Chand (PW-8) conducted the investigation. He prepared the site plan (Ext.PW-8/F) and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Viscera was sent to SFSL Junga, and a report (Ext. PX) was issued showing that Phosphine Gas was detected in the viscera. SI Kamal Chand (PW-8) recorded statements of remaining witnesses as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Baijnath, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge for trial. 3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Radha Devi (PW) is the Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat where Meera Devi was residing. Amar Singh (PW-2) is the father, Saviro Devi (PW-3) is the mother, and Thakur Singh (PW-4) is the brother of the deceased. Constable Meer Singh (PW-5) carried the viscera to SFSL Junga. ASI Rakesh Kumar (PW-6) was posted as MHC with whom the case property was deposited. SI Sureshta Thakur (PW-7) signed the F.I.R. SI Kamal Chand (PW-8) conducted the investigation. Dr. Tilak Bhagra (PW-9) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. 5. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. They claimed that a false case was registered against them. The prosecution only examined police officials. No defence was sought to be adduced by them. 6. Dr. Tilak Bhagra (PW-9) conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. 5. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. They claimed that a false case was registered against them. The prosecution only examined police officials. No defence was sought to be adduced by them. 6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. Meera Devi had made complaints of harassment to her parents and her brother. A quarrel with the woman in her matrimonial home would constitute mental cruelty. There was no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Meera Devi committed suicide within seven years of her marriage, and the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act was attracted to the present case. A woman would make complaints of harassment to her relatives, and the non-examination of independent witnesses is not sufficient. Therefore, the accused were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 7. Being aggrieved from the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused have filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence led before it. Radha Devi (PW-1) Pardhan did not support the prosecution's case regarding the fact that the accused were harassing the deceased. There were various contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which were ignored by the learned Trial Court. Thakur Singh (PW-4) admitted that his sister remained depressed due to the unemployment of her husband. This fact was also ignored by the learned Trial Court. The allegations made against the accused were general without any particulars. Learned Trial Court erred in relying upon these allegations. Hence, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be quashed and set aside. 8. Jagdish Chand (accused/appellant No.1) died during the pendency of the present appeal, therefore, proceedings abated qua him vide order dated 29.08.2024. 9. I have heard Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for appellant No.2 and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 10. Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for appellant No.2, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. 9. I have heard Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for appellant No.2 and Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State. 10. Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, learned counsel for appellant No.2, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Radha Devi (PW-1) Pardhan had not supported the prosecution; rather, she categorically stated that the deceased had not made any complaint of harassment, and the learned Trial Court erred in ignoring this admission. There were various contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. No specific allegations were made against the accused. There was no evidence that the accused had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013, decided on 2 nd March, 2021, and judgment of this Court, Suresh Kumar and another vs State of H.P. 2024:HHC 7119 in support of his submission. 11. Mr. Jitender K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the complaint of harassment is made generally to the relatives and not to unknown persons. The testimonies of the relatives of the deceased are consistent regarding the harassment of the deceased. Minor contradictions are bound to come with time, and these are not sufficient to discard the prosecution's case. Hence, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 12. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 13. Radha Devi (PW-1) stated that she knew Meera Devi and the accused. Meera Devi used to reside with the accused. She could not say how the accused treated the deceased. However, the deceased talked to her properly, and she did not make any complaint against the accused to her. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied the previous statement recorded by the police. It is apparent from her statement that she was contradicted with reference to her previous statement, and her testimony cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case. She was permitted to be cross-examined. She denied the previous statement recorded by the police. It is apparent from her statement that she was contradicted with reference to her previous statement, and her testimony cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case. 14 Amar Singh, informant (PW-2), stated that the deceased, Meera Devi, used to inform him that her mother-in- law quarrelled with her. He did not make any enquiry from the deceased regarding the quarrel because he used to remain outside his house in connection with his work. He and his wife went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and asked the accused to maintain a cordial atmosphere. His daughter went to Ludhiana along with her husband. She returned from Ludhiana on 13.04.2007. She resided with him for 3-4 days and went to her matrimonial home. She died on 22.04.2007. He stated in his cross-examination that the deceased had no problem except that her husband was not properly employed. She used to inform that her parents-in-law were aged people and they generally used to remain sick. He admitted that the deceased had never complained that her parents-in-law used to quarrel with her. 15. A perusal of his statement shows that the same is highly vague. It does not mention any particulars of the harassment. He made a general statement that Meera Devi used to inform him about the quarrels. He specifically stated that he had not made any enquiry from the deceased about the quarrel with her mother-in-law. His cross-examination makes his testimony in the examination-in-chief doubtful that the deceased had complained about the harassment by the accused because he specifically stated in his cross-examination that the deceased had not made any complaint about the behaviour of the accused; rather, she said that the accused used to remain sick. 16. Saviro Devi (PW-3) is the mother of the deceased. She stated that her daughter informed her that her parents-in-law used to quarrel with her without any reason. She had made a complaint regarding the quarrel 5-6 times. She and her husband went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and requested the accused not to quarrel with the deceased. The accused did not improve their behaviour, and they continued to quarrel with the deceased. The deceased committed suicide on 21 st April. She has also not mentioned any particulars. She and her husband went to the matrimonial home of the deceased and requested the accused not to quarrel with the deceased. The accused did not improve their behaviour, and they continued to quarrel with the deceased. The deceased committed suicide on 21 st April. She has also not mentioned any particulars. She has made a general statement that accused used to quarrel with the deceased without specifying the nature of the quarrel. She stated in her cross- examination that she used to visit the residence of the accused and had resided in the house of the accused for about 10-12 times. She admitted that the deceased used to tell her about the unemployment of her husband and the old age of the accused. She clarified that there was no need to file any complaint regarding the minor matters. This statement clearly shows that the quarrel deposed by her in her examination-in-chief was a minor matter which could arise in the matrimonial home. 17. Thakur Singh (PW-4) stated that Meera was his sister. She asked him to get her husband employed. He got him employed in the Company. The deceased was mentally depressed, and she reported that her mother-in-law was not satisfied with her. She was mentally upset due to the unemployment of her husband. 18. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamal & others vs. State of Gujarat & anr. 2025 INSC 504 , that when the allegations of the harassment were limited to taunts without the details, the same are not sufficient to infer the cruelty. It was observed:- “11. What is important, for the purposes of deciding this case, is that in the FIR, there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry by the accused. Further, the allegation of harassment of the complainant at the instance of the parents-in-law is limited to extending taunts and custody-related issues of minor children. However, there is no disclosure about the nature of those taunts. Admittedly, the second respondent was married to the first appellant in the year 2005, and for the last several years, since before lodging the FIR, the complainant had been working and staying in rented accommodations at different places. Besides that, the FIR was lodged on 20.07.2019, just three days after service of summons of the divorce proceedings initiated by the first appellant. Besides that, the FIR was lodged on 20.07.2019, just three days after service of summons of the divorce proceedings initiated by the first appellant. In these circumstances, we will have to consider whether the impugned proceedings are vexatious and mala fide, particularly in the context of a matrimonial dispute where time and again, Courts have been cautioned to be circumspect to obviate malicious prosecution of family members of the main accused. 12. Even if we assume that there are some allegations of assault and of physical and mental torture of the complainant, they are against the husband. As against the parents-in-law, the allegations are only of extending taunts and of not parting with the money for managing household expenses. Specific details in respect of those taunts have not been disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts here and there are a part of everyday life, which, for the happiness of the family, are usually ignored. Interestingly, as per her own allegations in the FIR, the complainant admits that when she reported those issues to her parents and uncle, she was counselled to bear patience. In the circumstances, in our considered view, no case to proceed against the parents-in-law, namely, the second and third appellant, is made out.” 19. In the present case, there is no detail of the quarrel, and it is difficult to rely upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to hold that the accused had treated the deceased with cruelty. 20. It was stated in F.I.R. that the deceased had called her father regarding the harassment by the accused on 21.04.2007; however, this version was abandoned in the Court as no witness deposed about it. Therefore, it is not proved on record that the deceased was harassed immediately before her death, and she was forced to commit suicide due to the harassment. 21. Learned Trial Court relied upon Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act; however, this Section can only be applied when there is evidence of cruelty. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar versus the State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 573 that the presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act will only apply when there is proof of the cruelty. It was observed: - “29. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar versus the State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 573 that the presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act will only apply when there is proof of the cruelty. It was observed: - “29. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act requires proof : (1) that her husband or relatives subjected her to cruelty and (2) that the married woman committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. 30. Although it is not necessary for us to refer to Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which raises a presumption as to dowry death, yet, to indicate the fine distinction between the two presumptions, we are referring to Section 113-B. In Section 113-A, the legislature has used the word “may”, whereas in Section 113-B, the word used is “shall”. 31. In this appeal, we are concerned with Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage, and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may be raised, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. 32. What is important to note is that the term “the court may presume, having regard to all other circumstances of the case that such suicide had been abetted by her husband” would indicate that the presumption is discretionary, unlike the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, which is mandatory. Therefore, before the presumption under Section 113-A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard. 33. The court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence under Section 113-A for finding out if cruelty was meted out. Therefore, before the presumption under Section 113-A is raised, the prosecution must show evidence of cruelty or incessant harassment in that regard. 33. The court should be extremely careful in assessing evidence under Section 113-A for finding out if cruelty was meted out. If it transpires that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court would not be satisfied for holding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide was guilty. 34. Section 113-A has been interpreted by this Court in Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab [Lakhjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 173: 1994 SCC (Cri) 235], Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (1998) 3 SCC 309 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 740] and Shanti v. State of Haryana [Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC 371 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 191] 35. This Court has held that from the mere fact of suicide within seven years of marriage, one should not jump to the conclusion of abetment unless cruelty was proved. The court has the discretion to raise or not to raise the presumption because of the words “may presume”. It must take into account all the circumstances of the case, which is an additional safeguard. 36. In the absence of any cogent evidence of harassment or cruelty, an accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 306 IPC by raising a presumption under Section 113-A.” 22. In the present case, the evidence regarding the cruelty is not satisfactory, and no reliance can be placed upon Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. 23. Thus, there is insufficient evidence against the accused, Jambo Devi, to prove that she had treated the deceased with cruelty and had created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. Hence, the accused is entitled to an acquittal of the charged offences. 24. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the accused, Jambo Devi, is acquitted of the charged offences. Hence, the accused is entitled to an acquittal of the charged offences. 24. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the accused, Jambo Devi, is acquitted of the charged offences. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the appeal in case no appeal is preferred, and in case of appeal, the same be dealt with as per the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the appellant/accused is directed to furnish her personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the appellant/accused, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 26. The record of the learned Trial Court be returned with a copy of this judgment for the information of the learned Trial Court. 27. Appeal stands disposed of along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.