Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

the accused in connection with demand for dowry. First Information Report (Exhibit PB) was recorded. Inquest report (Exhibit PE) was prepared. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted by Dr. A.S. Ahlawat (PW-8). He opined that Ritu died on account of consuming aluminum phosphate.

3. At the trial, charge was framed against the accused-appellant and his mother Indra Devi under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dal Chand (PW-4), Smt. Krishana (PW-5) father and mother of the deceased, Dr. A.S. Ahlawat (PW-8) who conducted the post- mortem examination and Ram Chander-Investigator (PW-9).

5. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. They denied Criminal Appeal No. 252-SB of 2001. 3 their complicity and pleaded innocence. The appellant stated that Ritu died of poison because she consumed some poisonous substance taking the same to be medicine. She was never subjected to harassment for the demand for dowry.

6. In defence, he examined four witnesses viz. Rameshwar Dass (DW-1), Rajinder Kumar (DW-2), Ashok Kumar (DW-3) and Prahalad (DW-4).

7. By impugned judgment dated February 9th, 2001 learned trial Judge acquitted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC but convicted him under Section 498-A and 306 IPC as spelled out in paragraph No.1 of this judgment and acquitted Indra Devi.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that prosecution failed to prove that Ritu's death was dowry death and it was also accepted by the learned trial Judge that it was not a dowry death and that is why the accused was acquitted for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. Since it was not dowry death so, the learned trial Judge fell in error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. There is no evidence on record to show that Ritu committed suicide because of being subjected to cruelty by the accused.

9. The accused-appellant was charged under Section 304-B IPC but was acquitted because the evidence led by the prosecution failed to prove that the death of Ritu occurred in connection with demand for dowry. No appeal by the State qua the acquittal of accused under Section 304-B IPC has been preferred. In view of this, the sole question to be decided in this appeal is whether the accused-appellant abetted the suicide which could bring his act under the mischief of Section 306 IPC. Incidentally the accused- appellant and the parents of the deceased were residing in the same town—Sonepat. Dal Chand (PW-4) and Krishana (PW-5) are the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused. Both of them have categorically stated that the accused-appellant harassed the deceased after the Criminal Appeal No. 252-SB of 2001. 4 marriage because the demand of Rs.50,000/- raised by the accused could not be met. On a number of occasions, they went to the house of accused-appellant to plead that the deceased should not be ill- treated. Even on the day of occurrence, Krishana went to the house of the accused-appellant to resolve the misunderstanding between the couple. It was also stated by Krishana (PW-5) that there was so much of hatred against the deceased that her mother-in-law refused to take meals cooked by the deceased. Deceased was turned out by the accused-appellant from his house after giving her beatings.

10. In Krishan Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 7, the wife of accused-appellant committed suicide by consuming organo-phosphorus pesticide after about 2 years of the marriage. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal speaking for the Bench observed that husband had grabbed his child from her mother deceased and he filed divorce petition 4-5 months before the occurrence and also four days prior to the occurrence, husband again expressed that wife-deceased should leave his house but only after signing the divorce papers were sufficient circumstances in which deceased was driven to commit suicide and conviction of the husband was converted form Section 304-B IPC to one under Section 306 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years.

11. When it comes to abetting the act of suicide by the husband of the deceased wife, considerations would be at a different footing than the considerations involved in an ordinary case. The words “instigates” or “aids” used in Section 107 IPC would be of wider and deeper amplitude. Cruel and unscrupulous husbands actuated by mens-rea create circumstances which force the hapless wives to put an end to their lives by committing suicide. Such husbands heap cruelty on the wives to somehow get rid of them. Creation of such circumstances by the husband as are sufficient to drive the wife to take the extreme step of committing suicides would essentially be act of instigating and aiding the act of suicide. The Courts of law cannot remain insensitive to the miseries of such Criminal Appeal No. 252-SB of 2001. 5 unfortunate wives nor can be silent spectators.

12. Section 113-A of the Evidence Act has been enacted specifically to deal with the situation. If the husband or his relatives subjected the deceased to cruelty and she committed suicide, it can be presumed that her suicide was abetted and there could not be any other reason for the deceased to commit suicide except that she was subjected to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A IPC and driven to end her life by suicide.

13. It has already been detailed in paragraph No.9 above, as to how the deceased was subjected to cruelty mental as well as physical by her husband-the appellant. The evidence is cogent enough and inspires all the confidence.

14. It thus stood proved that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by the appellant, life was made miserable for her, she was put in such a plight that she was driven to commit suicide. The circumstances compel the invocation of the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act.

15. It is gratifying to note that the trial Judge appreciated the evidence and circumstances in the correct perspective and reached the correct decision. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence do not suffer from any flaw and are upheld. The appeal is dismissed.

16. The appellant, was released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. His bail/surety bonds are cancelled. He be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE

26.11.2010. SN