High Court
Case Details
,A ^ .: "\ --.. ?cs--^ ^ •.^' L ^^^-^^w^^Ls-Sv: CFooo6be4'i'^' f@ IS 2HE HI8H OOUBS OP OHHAl'IIS&AKH Al! BlXiASFUK* Criminal Appeal No« 1'"^- /2001. APPBLLAKT (^s^c^y s yaras aaa s/o Sannu Ilam @ Baba, aged about 2§> yearSf resident of Pathalgaaw, BS.E. Pathalganw, Bistt^ Jashpurnagay (G^G^) ISSili RESPONDEN2 s State of Ohhattisgarh 'EhrougIii P.S.H. Officer, P<|S»H» Pathalganw^ Bistt^JasIxpurnagar<» MEMG OP APPEAL UHBBS aBG'I!IO» ^7A (.2^ OF GR.P.G, ^>- '^^
Legal Reasoning
HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr.Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Crlminal Apoeal No. 12 of 2001 APPELIANT Paras Ram VERSUS RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgarh
Legal Reasoning
Smt. Meena Shastri, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vaibhav Goverdhan, P.L. for the State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTXON 374 f2^ OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE J UDGMENT (05.04.2013) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 25,11.2000 passed by Additional Sessions . Judge; Jashpurnagar in SessionsTrial No. 122 of 1999 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC and sentencjng hlm to undergo rlgorous Imprisonment for flve years with fine of Rs.5,000^ In default of payment of fine to for one year three further undergo simple imprisonment mpnths. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.1998 at about 2. 9.30 p.m, wlfe of accused/appel!ant Usha Bai consumed some She was jmmediately shjfted to poisonous substance, Primary Health Center/ Pathalgaon where she died on 06.10.1998 at 8.20 p.m.. From the hospltal, memo Ex.P-5 was sent to the police authority and based on that memo, merg intimatjon Ex. P-4 was recorded on the same day, Postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted on 07.10,1998 vjde Ex.P-3 by Dn James MInz (PW-6) who opined that the deeeased died en aeeount ©fconsumlne 2A) -z- poisonous substance. After merg enquiry/ FIR Ex.P-6 was the registered on 04.01.1999 against the appellant for offence under section 306 of IPC and after completton of investigation charge sheet was filed on 01.04.1999 against him for the sald offence. 3. So as to hold accused/appeliant guilty/ prosecution has examined 11 witnesses jn support of Its case. Statement of accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 ofthe Code of Crimjnat Procedure in which he densed the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implicatson jn the case. 4. After hearing the parties/ the tria! Court convieted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under section 306 of IPC, Hence/ the present appeal, Contention of Smt. Shastri, 5. learnedcounsel appearing for the appeilant is that even if the entire proseeution case is taken as it is, offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out against the appellant because basic jngredients of the said section in particular Section 107 of IPC are completely missing. She submits that there is no evidence that at any stage the appeliant abetted the deceased for committing suicide. She argues that norma!!y in the village where the appellant was resldjng/ persons are sn habit of preparing and consuming home made Ijquor and in the present case also all the famiiy members of the accused used to. prepare and consume liquor, She further submjts that the evidence of Dhanisai Siddar (PW-1)/ father of the deceased is not so be clinching on which basis the accuse/appeiiant convicted. In support of her arguments she placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of M. Mohan can v. State represented by the Deputy SuperintencSent of -•5- Police reported in (2011) 3 SCC 626. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it learned counsel for the has been argued by Shri Goverdhan/ State that the conviction of the appedant is strictly in accordance with the law and there is no infirmity in the judgment impugned. 7, Heard counsel for the parties and perused the materia! available on record induding the judgment impugned. 8. Dhanisai Siddar (PW-1), father of the deceased has stated that marriage of her daughter Usha Bai was solemnized with accused/appeilant about three years prlor to the date of inddent and for about two years the appellant kept her happily but thereafter he started quarreling with her. He has stated that on one or two occasjons when the deceased had come to his house, she informed him that after consuming liquor the appellant used to beat her. He has stated that two months prior to the date of Incident for the time the deceased had come to his house and in last paragraph-7 of his cross-examinatjon he has admitted that he cannot tell wlth certalnty as to jn whjch month the deceased had come to his house and at that time she had not disdosed him about any quarrel between her and accused/appellant. He has further admjtted that in his community every person consumes home made liquor and he also consumes the same. Ramchandra Singh (PW-2) - brother-in-law of the deceased has stated that at times after consuming liquor the appellant In paragraph-2 he has used to quarrel with the deceased. stated that about 15 days prlor to the date of incident accused/appellant had threatened the deceased of life in her paternal house but this fact has not been disdosed by this witness in hls case diary statement. Kadam Kunwar (PW-3) ~ 'M) ^ ^ -t 2^. sister-in-law of the deceased has made almost similar statement as has been made by Ramchandra Singh (PW-2). Jhamal Sai (PW-4) is a wstness to inquest Ex.P-1. Shyamlal is a witness to Sharma (PW-5)- Assistant Sub-inspector seizure Ex. P-2 by which vjscera of the deceased was seized. Dr. James Mlnz (PW-6) conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 07.10.1998. the deceased died due to poisoning and mode of death was shock - Sub-inspector and coma. (PW-8) registered merg Ex. P-4 and FIR Ex. P-6. Dr. Purusottam Sunthar (PW-9) had sent memo Ex. P-5 from the hospital on which basis merg Intimation was recorded. Hariram Prasad Choudhary (PW-10) - the Investigating Officer has duly supported the prosecution case. Deepak Singh (PW-11) is a witness to seizure Ex.P-2 by which viscera of the deceased was seized by the potice. According to him, Balbirsingh Rajput 9. Section 306 ofthe Indian Penal Code reads as under: of such 306. Abetment of suicide - If any person commits suidde, whoever abets the commission punished with Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shalf also be liab!e to fine. sulcide, shaff be the accused/appellant can be To see whether the act of termed as cruelty, a gtimpse of wabetment" enshrined »n Section 107 IPC appears to be the need/ whjch reads as under: Section 107. A person abets the doing ofa thingf who - First. - Instlgates snyperson to do that thing; or Secondly - Engages w'sth one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the I . w -^>" doing of that thing^ ff an act: or iffegal omission takes pfaces in pursuance of that co/psp/'/'acy, and order to the doing of that thing; or 'm Thirdly.- Intentionally aids^ by any act or illegal omission, the doing ofthat thing. Explanation 1. - A person who^ by willful m/srepresentation, or by wiflful conceafment ofa fact which he is bound to disclose, material vo/untarily causes or procureSf or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done^ is said to fnstigate the doing ofthat thing. Expfanation 2.- Whoever^ either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to fadlitate the commission of that act, and thereby facflitates the commission thereof, is said to a'sd the do'mg ofthat act." 10. Minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that the evidence does not reflect anywhere that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant to the extent where she was left with no other option but to commjt sulcide.There is absolutely no evidence of abetment and the only evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution js that according to the father, brother-in-law and the slster-in-law of deceased, on 2-3 occasions after consuming liquor accused/appellant had beaten her and this itself would not CQnstitute the offence under section 306 of IPC. Statements the witnesses do not go to show that just before the incident accused/appellant had ever instigated or abetted the of deceased in any manner whatsoever which could have compelled her for commission of suicide. This being the situation, it appears to be difficult for this Court to maintain the conviction of accused/appellant under Section 306 IPC as the ingredients of abetment defined in Section 107 IPC are -6 " completely absent in this case. 11. Thus, the findings recorded by the Court below convicting and sentencing accused/appellant as mentioned above do not appear to be well reasoned and therefore, the same have to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, Impugned judgment dated 25.11.2000 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. He is on bajl. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge