RAKHAL DEBNATH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

A However, according to the prosecution, shortly after marriage, the appellant demanded money from his father in-law, PW3, for purpose of his business which was declined whereupon the appellant retorted that he knew how to collect money from him through his own B daughter, and thereafter pledged the jewels of his wife with PW17 for a specified sum. The appellant's wife was also stated to have been nurturing a grievance against the appellant in view of his illicit contacts with his niece (the second accused) who lived in the very same house c of appellant. It was alleged by the prosecution that all this ultimately resulted in the appellant's wife taking the extreme decision of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself on fire. The appellant was proceeded against for offences D under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC. The trial court acquitted the appellant-accused. In appeal, the High Court reversed the acquittal of appellant and held him guilty on both the charges. Hence the present appeal. E Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. P.W.19 the doctor who examined the deceased (the appellant's wife) immediately after she was brought to the hospital reported that according to the appellant the deceased suffered the burn injuries from the F burning stove when she was preparing tea and bread. However, in the 313 CrPC questioning the appellant made it clear that he did not make any such statement. If the said statement is to be accepted then what remains is the postmortem report, the evidence of the post mortem G doctor P.W.15 and the recoveries made at the place of occurrence, namely, kitchen (viz) the 20 litre cane in which about a litre of kerosene was found, the quilt and pillows and a piece of cloth soaked in kerosene and the clothes worn by the deceased which also smelled H RAKHAL DEBNATH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 515 kerosene. The question of deceased having suffered A burn injuries from the burning stove is ruled out by the own version of the appellant. [Para 6] [521-G-H; 522-A-B] B

1.2. Considering the extent of burn injuries stated by the doctor in the postmortem report (viz.) the first degree burn injuries from top of the head up to the tip of the leg makes it clear that it could have been caused only by pouring kerosene from the cane over the head and by burning the person after that. The smell of kerosene oil in the clothes and other materials recovered at the scene c of occurrence also fully support such a situation which could have only been inflicted by the deceased herself and, therefore, the conclusion of the High Court in having held that the deceased committed suicide cannot be found fault with. [Para 7] [522-C-E] D

2.1. The consistent statements of PWs 3, 9 and 11 which disclose the complaint made by the deceased about the conduct of the appellant that he made a demand for money from her father apart from his illicit relationship with the second accused merits acceptance. E P.W.3 stated that after some days of the marriage the appellant approached him and his son for a sum of Rs.40,000/-, that when PW 3 expressed his inability to make the payment the appellant left the place in a huff by stating that he knows how to get the money from him F through his own daughter. P.W.3 also stated that the deceased herself informed him about the torture meted out to her by the appellant along with second accused for money when P.W.3 declined to pay any money to the appellant. P.W.3 further stated that the deceased also G informed him about the illicit relationship of appellant with the second accused. The pledging of jewels of the deceased with P .W.17 was also proved by producing Exhibit 3 by which P .W.3 repaid a sum of Rs.11,000/- to P.W.17 to get back the jewels which were seized by the H 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A police along with ornaments. P.W.17 in his evidence also confirmed that the appellant pledged the jewels with him. P.W.3 also identified the jewels which he gifted to his daughter at the time of the marriage which were recovered from P.W.17 and marked as Exhibit 1 B (collectively). The receipts Exhibit 3 and 3A disclosed that the said jewels were pledged by the appellant for a sum of Rs.11,000/-. If those jewels really did not belong to the deceased the same could have been established only by the appellant by producing proper evidence before the c Court. Except mere denial in the 313 statement, the appellant failed to show that those jewels which were pledged by him did not belong to the deceased. [Paras 8,11] [522-F-H; 523-A-C; 524-D-E]

2.2. PW3 stated that though his daughter complained D to him about the monetary demand as well as illicit relationship of the appellant with the second accused he did not inform the same to others except his close relatives fearing any damage that may be caused to the matrimonial life of his daughter which conduct of P.W.3 E as a father of the deceased was quite natural. [Para 9] [523-D-E] F

2.3. P.W.5 who is a relative of the deceased also stated that the deceased informed him once about the illicit intimacy of the appellant with second accused. P.W.10 who is stated to be the cousin of the deceased deposed that when she visited his house once after marriage she informed him that she did not like the environment of her matrimonial home and that the G appellant and second accused used to talk in code language. P.W.11 who is the neighbour of P.W.3, in his evidence also deposed that when the deceased visited her parental home on the occasion of Dwira Gaman Ceremony she informed him that she did not like the H relationship of the appellant with the second accused and RAKHAL DEBNATH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 517 that appellant was demanding money from her father. A P.W.11 further stated that deceased also requested him to tell her father not to give any money to appellant. P .W.11 also stated that according to the deceased she was not happy with the marriage. To the same effect was the version of P.W.12. [Para 10] [523-F-H; 524-A] B

2.4. As rightly held by the High Court the father of the deceased cannot be expected to inform everyone living around him about the unpleasant factum of the daughter's embarrassing living condition in her matrimonial home and, therefore, mere non-disclosure of C those facts to others cannot be a ground to disbelieve the version of P.W.3. No inconsistency was found in the evidence of P.W.3 and other witnesses who had the advantage of hearing from the mouth of the deceased about the conduct of the appellant relating to his demand, D as well as, his illicit intimacy with the second accused. Nothing was suggested to any of the witnesses on behalf of the appellant to state that they were deposing against him with any other ulterior motive. [Para 12] [524-F-H] E

#3. The relevant criteria for application of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 is duly attracted to the facts of the instant case. The deceased (appellant's wife) committed suicide within 35 days from the date of her marriage and the allegation of cruelty was also fully F established. The evidence thus disclosed that the conduct of the appellant vis-a-vis the deceased coupled with the consequential demand of money from P.W.3 the father of the deceased and also the pledging of the jewels of the deceased fully established the case of the prosecution that the deceased was instigated by the G appellant to take the extreme decision of committing suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and set herself on fire and thereby the charge of abetment under Section 306 and as well as Section 498A stood proved. There is no merit in this appeal. [Paras 14] [526-E-G] H 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A