). ----- Mahendra Nath Mahato … … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 283 of 2013 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2013 and order of sentence dated 08.04.2013 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Seraikella Kharsawan in S.T. No. 42 of 2007). ----- Mahendra Nath Mahato … …. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY P R E S E N T ----- For the Appellant : Mrs. J.K. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, SPP ----- By Court : Heard the parties. 1. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Seraikella- Kharsawan, in Sessions Trial Case No.42 of 2007 under Sections 498A, 306, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the instant appeal. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant is the husband and the prosecution case as per FIR, lodged by the father of the deceased, is that his daughter was married in 2005 and thereafter started living in her matrimonial home. After one year, her mother-in-law (Urmila Mahato), her husband (Mahendra Nath Mahato) and her unmarried sister-in-law (Dipali Mahato) started subjecting his daughter to cruelty. His daughter used to complain about the harassment to her family members. On several occasions, he had reasoned with the in-laws to keep his daughter properly. On 24.11.2006 an information was received that his daughter was no more. On this information, they went to her matrimonial home where the dead body could not be found which had already been cremated by that time. It has been alleged that being fed up with the harassment meted by the accused persons her daughter committed suicide on 23.11.2006. 3. On the written report Seraikella Kharsawan (Nimdih) P.S. Case No. 42 of 2006 was registered under Sections 498A, 306, 201, 34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant, his mother and sister. Police on investigation found the case true against the appellant, but charge-sheet was not submitted against one Dipali Mahato as she was undergoing treatment for unsoundness of mind in Mental Hospital, Kanke, 1 Ranchi since 2005. The mother-in-law was not sent up for trial for want of sufficient evidence. Later closure report was submitted against the other in-laws. 4. The accused was charged for the offence under Sections 498A, 306, 201 of Indian Penal Code and put on trial. 5. Altogether seven prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence. 6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been assailed on the ground that there is no evidence of abetment against the appellant. Furthermore, neither in the F.I.R nor in the evidence there is any allegation that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in reference to any unlawful demand. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in order to bring presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the foundational facts before such a presumption can be drawn. There must be evidence to show that the husband had subjected the deceased to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. There should be consistent evidence regarding harassment. In the present case, I.O. has not been examined. 8. Learned counsel for the State has defended the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. From the combined reading of testimony of the witnesses, it appears that there is no evidence that this appellant had subjected his wife to cruelty or had abetted commission of suicide. PW1-Rekha Kumari has stated in para-2 that victim was having quarrel with her mousi and she saw it while she was going to the school, on the said date when she committed suicide by hanging. PW2-Papun Mahato has also deposed that the deceased had committed suicide and before her death she used to have quarrel with the sister of appellant. PW3-Ashwani Mahato states that on the said date of incidence, the deceased had quarrel with her sister-in-law in which the appellant had tried to pacify the matter. 10. None of these witnesses has been declared hostile and therefore, their testimonies have to be accepted and from which an inference can be drawn that the deceased used to quarrel with the sister of the appellant, who was found during investigation to be suffering from unsoundness of mind. 11. PW5-Brindawan Mahato, is the informant and he has levelled allegation against the appellant, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. It has been deposed by him that his daughter used to complain that they had demanded Rs.20,000/- from her, however, 2 this allegation is coming for the first time, as the informant has not levelled such allegation in the F.I.R. He has further deposed that on 24.11.2006 his son-in-law and Papun Mahto themselves came and informed him that his daughter was seriously ill and suffering from diarrhoea and dysentery and when he went there then he came to know that his daughter has committed suicide. PWs 6 and 7 are not the eye witnesses to any part of incidence. 12. There is not a shade of doubt that death of the deceased was suicidal in nature. The question for determination is whether the appellant was in any way responsible for impelling the deceased in taking the fatal step of bringing her life to end. 13. A combined reading of testimony of witnesses presents an altogether different picture, where the source of the stressful life of the deceased was not with her husband, but with her sister-in-law [Dipali Mahto] who was suffering from unsoundness of mind and was also undergoing treatment for her ailment. In order to prove charge U/s. 498A IPC, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that (a) victim was a married lady, (b) she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or relative of her husband, (c) that such cruelty consisted of either harassment of the woman in reference to an unlawful demand or a wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to lead the lady to commit suicide or cause grave injury to her life, limb or health, (d) such injury may be physical or mental. 14. In the present case, FIR is absolutely silent about any unlawful demand and the deposition of witnesses regarding such a demand having been made is obviously a product of afterthought. PW1, PW2 and PW3 have all consistently deposed that deceased used to quarrel with her sister-in-law. There is no evidence of harassment against this appellant or that he had abetted the suicide in any manner. In all cases whenever an unfortunate incidence of suicide of wife takes place it cannot perforce drive to a legal conclusion that her husband was responsible for abetting the suicide. In the absence of evidence to prove the charge under Section 498A and Section 306 of the IPC, the judgment of conviction is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. The instant Criminal Appeal is allowed. The sureties are discharged from the (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) liability of their bail bonds. Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 04.04.2024. sandeep/ 3