High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 191/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. (DR.) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)
Legal Reasoning
The judgment and order, dated 21.11.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, at Mangaldoi, in sessions Case No. 81(DM)2004, convicti ng the appellant under Section 498A and 306 IPC and sentencing him thereby to un dergo imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, further rig orous imprisonment for 15 days for his conviction under Section 498A IPC and als o to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in defa ult, further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month for his conviction under Section 306 IPC, has been challenged, in this appeal. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. P. P., for the respondent State of Assam. 3. Indra Kumari(deceased) was married to the accused appellant in t he year 1997. As per prosecution, after the marriage, she was subjected to tortu re and harassment, both mentally and physically, by her husband and mother-in-la w. She was not allowed to visit her parental house. The marriage of the victim w ith the accused was according to their own choice. She belonged to the lower cas te and she was under-estimated and neglected by her mother-in-law. The accused a nd his mother used to beat her also. On 05.07.2003, the victim was found hanging from a bamboo with plastic rope. On receipt of the death of the deceased, Rukma Kumar(PW-1, brother of the deceased), his wife Nirupama Kumari(PW-3), and siste r Renu Kumari(PW-4), came to the house of the accused and saw the dead body of t he deceased hanging from the bamboo. They noticed injuries on the body of the de ceased. PW-1 lodged the FIR, which was registered as Sipajhar PS Case No. 132/20 03 under Section 304B IPC. During the investigation, inquest on the dead body of the deceased was held and it was subjected to post-mortem examination. On compl etion of investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet under Section 304B IPC against the accused appellant Bhabendra Kalita, and his mother Sabitri Kalita. During the trial, the trial Court framed the charges under Section 304B and 498A IPC against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and clai med to be tried. 4. Altogether, 9 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The ac cused persons, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.c., denied t he allegations levelled against them and pleaded that they were innocent. On con clusion of trial, the trial Court held that the deceased committed suicide faili ng to bear the humiliation, physical and mental torture inflicted by her husband . The accused Sabitri Kalita wa acquitted from the charges framed against her. H owever, the instant accused appellant was held guilty under Section 498A and 306 IPC, as stated earlier. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution alleg ed that the victim was subjected to torture or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry. 5. PW-1, brother of the deceased, alleged that the victim was under -estimated and neglected by the accused and his mother as she was from lower cas te. However, it is in his evidence that the marriage of the victim and the accus ed was according to their own choice. According to his allegation, the mother-in -law of the deceased did not give her the status of daughter-in-law. He also sta ted that on receipt of the information of the death of his sister, he went to th e house of the accused and noticed 3 marks of assault near the abdomen of the bo dy of the deceased. He alleged that prior to the incident, the victim reported h im about the torture by the accused. 6. PW-3, Nirupama Kumari, stated that one week back from the date o f occurrence, she met the deceased and noticed injuries near her eyes and waist. The deceased told her that she was beaten by her accused husband and the reason of such assault was that the accused had illicit relationship with her sister-i n-law. However, PW-3, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the I.O. neither asked about the illicit relationship of the accused with his sister-in- law, nor, asked about the assault by the accused prior to the incident. PWs-1 an d 3 further stated that they arrived at the place of occurrence, they found bloo d marks on the wall inside the house of the accused. But the I.O.(PW-9) neither found any blood marks on the wall nor it was stated before him by the aforesaid witnesses that they noticed any blood stains on the wall of the house of the acc used. 7. PW-4 claimed that once she witnessed the assault by the accused on her sister (deceased). She alleged that once the accused drove her out from h is house after beating her(deceased). All other witnesses are reported witnesses . They only saw the dead body of the deceased. 8. dy of the deceased and found, as follows: (cid:28)Dead body of a female aged approximately 33 years with rigor mortis present. On careful examination, there is bleeding from mouth and nostrils with tongue bite . An irregular mark placed obliquely high up in the neck with a knot on the left side of neck seen. On cut section, porsmentigaties seen. Thorax intact. Cranium and spinal cord-normal. Abdomen-normal. Uterus normal in size and shape. Other PW-8, Dr. Bhabani Prasad Khound, held the inquest on the dead bo organs normal. Descriptions are ante-mortem in nature. (cid:29) In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was due to asphyxias as a result of hanging. In his cross-examination, the Doctor admitted that bleeding from mouth, nostrils and tongue may be caused due to hanging. The Doctor, thus, did not find any injuries on the dead body as 9. stated by PWs-1, 3 and 4. 10. The trial Court on the basis of medical and ocular evidence, inf erred that the deceased might have committed suicide. The trial Court also belie ved the evidence of PW-3 that the accused told her that the accused had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. 11. d below for ready reference: Section 306 IPC speaks of abetment of suicide. The same is quote (cid:28)Section 306. Abetment of suicide - if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either d escription for a term which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. (cid:29) 12. nal Code, as under: The abetment has been defined under Section 107 of the Indian Pe (cid:28)107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First - i nstigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly - engages with one or more ot her person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act o r illegal omission takes places in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - intentionally aides, by any act or illega In the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2 The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by t l omission, the doing of that thing. (cid:29) 13. 009(8) Supreme 550, in paragraph No. 21, it was held as under: (cid:28)21. his Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, ther e has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active a ct or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and t his act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that h e committed suicide. (cid:29) 14. In the case of Kishori Lal v. State M.P., (2007) 10 SCC 797, Su preme 550, which was also reported in 2013 GLT, March issue, in paragraph No. 6, it was observed as under: (cid:28)6. a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) - engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thin g; or (3) - intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that th ing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word (cid:28)insti gate (cid:29) literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion t o do any thing. The abetment ay be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid , as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provisio n for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. (cid:28)Abetted (cid:29) in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence . (cid:29) 15. Here, in the case, the prosecution led no evidence to show that the accused instigated the victim to commit suicide. So far as cruelty under Sec tion 498A IPC is concerned, the evidence of PWs-1, 3 and 4 are inconsistent with the previous statements recorded by them under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Neither PW- 1 in his FIR alleged that the accused had any illicit relationship with his sist er-in-law for which he treated the victim with cruelty nor PWs-3 and 4 stated be fore the I.O. that the victim was subjected to cruelty by her husband as he had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. They, first time, in the Court, sta ted that the victim was subjected to assault by her accused husband as the accus ed had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law. That apart, PWs-1, 3 and 4 s tated that they notice injury marks on the dead body of the deceased whereas the inquest report as well as the post-mortem report did not speak of any such inju ries. The aforesaid witnesses also stated that they saw blood stains on the wall in the inside of the house of the accused but no such stains was noticed or was stated by the witnesses before the I.O.. Thus, the statement of the witnesses i s an improvement on the version given by them under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. 16. In the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal, (1994) 1 SCC 73, it was observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the fac ts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in trial for the purp ose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced h er to end the life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a vict im committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and diff erence in domestic life quite common to society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide, should be found guilty. It appears that the trial Court held the accused guilty of surmi 17. ses and conjectures. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is hereby set aside and quashed. 18. he is not required in connection with any other case. 19. 20.
Decision
The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Return the LCRs forthwith to the Court below with a copy of this The accused appellant is hereby acquitted and set at liberty if order.