Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Bench: JUSTICE U.C. Dhyani
Balam Singh Vs. State Of Uttaranchal On 11 August 2015
Law Point:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498A — Abetment of Suicide — Cruelty — Prosecution not able to prove charges beyond shadow of reasonable doubt — Victim was married to appellant some 8-9 years ago before alleged incident — Presumption of Section 113A of Evidence Act will not apply — No iota of evidence that husband or his relative subjected victim to cruelty — Allegation of cruelty alleged against victim does not inspire confidence — Judgment rendered by Trial Court set aside.
JUDGEMENT
1. PW 1 wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1), which was addressed to Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Dunda, Uttarkashi, enumerating the facts contained therein that daughter of uncle of the informant was married to Balam Singh (appellant herein). She was ousted from her matrimonial home by her husband. The victim came to her matrimonial home. On 18.03.1999, when the informant came back from the forest, he came to know that Balam Singh came along with five people, at 12:00 noon, and obtained signatures of the victim on two papers. The victim, thereafter, consumed poison. Balam Singh and his companions fled away. The victim breathed her last in the following night.
2. After the investigation of the case, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC were framed against the accused-appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Ummed Singh (informant), PW 2 Smt. Jagdei, PW 3 Atol Singh, PW 4 Dr. D.L. Sah, PW 5 Vachan Singh and PW 6 Deep Chandra Shah (I.O.) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellant in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case.
3. After considering the evidence on record, trial court convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years along with fine of Rs. 4000/- The appellant was sentenced under Section 498-A of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine of Rs. 2000/- vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2003. Aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, present Criminal Appeal was filed by the appellant.
4. PW 1 (informant), in his examination-in-chief, stated that the victim was married to the appellant about 6-7 years ago (from the date of deposition). The victim used to live with her husband at Chandigarh. Whenever she came to Uttarkashi, she used to live in her parental home. Whenever the appellant used to come from Chandigarh, he used to visit her wife at her parental home. On 18.03.1999, when the victim was present at her parental home, the appellant came with 4-5 people and obtained signatures of the victim on two papers. [PW 1 heard the same]. Thereafter, the victim went inside her room. PW1 also heard that the victim consumed something in her room. PW 1 reached his house late in the evening (at 8:00 p.m.). PW 1 was told that the victim consumed poison. When PW 1 reached his house the appellant was alive. The next day, PW 1 went to the Doctor, but he was not available. On 19.03.1995, the victim passed away. PW1 wrote the complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and submitted it to the Naib Tehsildar (Revenue Police), Dunda.
5. In his cross-examination, PW 1 stated that the victim was his cousin. When the appellant and his companion got the signatures of the victim on papers, PW 1 was not present. The poison was not consumed by the victim in presence of PW 1. This fact was got written by the PW1 in the complaint on the basis of hearsay. The appellant did not cast any aspersions on his wife in his presence.
6. In this way, nothing happened in the presence of PW 1, who was reporter, and who lodged the first information report on the basis of hearsay. PW1 also said that the victim was alive when he came back from the jungle, but the victim did not say anything to PW 1 as to why she consumed the poison and also that the appellant in the presence of his companion, forced her to give her signatures on the blank papers.
7. PW 2 stated that, on the relevant date, at around 12:00 noon, the appellant came to victim’s parental home. The appellant came along with six people. The appellant was forced to append her signatures on blank papers. When the villagers asked the appellant as to why he was forcing the victim to sign the blank paper, the appellant replied that he wants divorce from his wife. The victim consumed something thereafter. She passed away the following night.
8. PW 2 stated, in the cross-examination, that the victim was the only daughter of her parents. She used to live with her husband at Chandigarh. The victim and the appellant had two children. She was not ill. In her cross examination, she admitted that the victim did not consume poison in her presence. She also admitted that the victim did not tell her that the appellant made her to consume the poison or the appellant administered her poison. According to the PW 2, the victim consumed the poison on her own. It is also surprising to note that in her cross-examination, PW 2 admitted that she did not see victim’s husband at her parental house.
9. PW 3, who lived in the neighborhood of the victim’s parental home, stated in his examination-in-chief, that the appellant dragged his wife and forced her to append her signatures on stamp papers. The appellant stated that he wanted to divorce the victim. Thereafter, the victim consumed something and fell on the ground. Victim’s mother chased the appellant. The victim vomited. She stated that she has consumed the poison. Doctor was approached, be he did not come. On the next day, the victim died. In her cross-examination, PW 3 stated that the victim was married to the appellant some 6-7 yeas ago. Three children were begotten by the victim out of her wedlock with the appellant. She never saw appellant and victim quarrelling with each other. She also admitted that the victim, as also her mother, used to visit the appellant at Chandigarh quite often. PW 3 did not see the victim consuming the poison. No effort was made to take the victim to the hospital. The victim did not reveal anything to PW 3 except the fact that she consumed the poison.
10. PW 4 conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He not only proved the same (Ext. Ka-2), but also opined that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. In his cross-examination, PW 4 admitted that the death of the deceased because of some prolonged illness could not be ruled out. [In FSL report dated 15th June, 2001, Chlore Pyree Phos insecticide poison was found].
11. PW 5 stated that the victim used to live with her husband at Chandigarh. 3-4 days before the incident, the victim came to her parental home. 2-3 years ago, the appellant came to PW5’s house and made a request to convene a panchayat to resolve the dispute between the appellant and the victim. PW 5 also stated that the victim consumed poison. Since the victim came along with one Shiv Singh from Chandigarh, therefore, the appellant wanted to divorce the victim. During the investigation, Naib Tehsildar recovered a bottle from the house of the victim and prepared recovery memo thereof. PW 5 was also a signatory to the inquest report. In his cross-examination, PW 5 said that he was not aware as to when the appellant was married to the victim? The victim died on the next day she consumed the poison. No effort was made by PW 5 to call the Doctor.
12. PW 6 was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Dunda. When the incident took place, on the complaint of PW 1 chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5) was lodged by PW 6 and an entry of the same was made in Ext. Ka-6. PW 6 also proved other documents relating to the inquest. He also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-10) and after being satisfied that the appellant has committed the offence, submitted a charge-sheet (Ext. Ka-11) against the appellant. In the cross-examination, PW 6 stated that when he reached at the place of incident on 20.03.1999, victim’s mother was present. [She (victim’s mother) has not been examined before the Trial Court].
13. PW 6 also admitted that mother of the victim did not cast any aspersion against the appellant. She did not say anything against the appellant. She did not give any statement as if the appellant committed any crime. PW 6 also admitted that PW 1 gave an application to him on 17.04.1999 that he gave the complaint on 20.03.1999 in a fit of rage. PW 6 also admitted in his cross-examination that PW 1 gave an application to him that the appellant was innocent.
14. Section 306 IPC deals with abetment of suicide. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant abetted the commission of suicide by the victim. The death of victim on account of consumption of poison is a forgone conclusion, but the abetment of such suicide on the part of the appellant has not been established. Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would have raised presumption against the appellant, had the incident took place within a period of seven years from the date of victim’s marriage with the appellant. In the instant case, it has not been established with precision that the victim died within seven years of her marriage with the appellant. The prosecution has brought it’s story in a round about manner that the incident took place within 6-7, 7-8 years of her marriage. It is also not established that the appellant or any of his relatives subjected the victim with the cruelty. If the victim consumed the poison, the same was not on account of any abetment on the part of the appellant, but on her own. In other words, it is not established that the appellant or any of his relative abetted the commission of such suicide by the victim.
15. Nobody, not even PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 or PW 5, saw the victim consuming the poison. No effort was made by any of the witnesses to call the Doctor, which would have been a normal conduct on the part of the witnesses.
The only evidence in favour of the prosecution is the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, which has indicated that Chlore Pyree Phos was found in the viscera of the victim.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Mahesh Yadav v. State of Uttarakhand and Another, reported in 2014 (1) UD 94, which is based upon a catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court including the one in M. Mohan v. State with Velmurugan & Another v. State, reported in AIR 2011 SCW 1601, in which Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
“45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.”
17. PW 1 reported the matter only on the basis of hearsay, and PW 6 (I.O.) has affirmed that PW 1 admitted that he lodged the report on the basis of misconception and the appellant, in fact, was innocent. Above all, the mother of the victim Krishna Devi did not lodge the first information report. She did not come to witness-box and even did not complain about the appellant to the investigating officer, as has been admitted by PW 6 in his cross-examination. The medical officer also did not rule out the possibility of death of the victim on account of her prolonged illness. Surprisingly, victim herself did not utter a single word against the appellant to any of the prosecution witnesses until she survived. Even the charge framed by learned Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi shows that the victim was married to the appellant some 8-9 years ago before the alleged incident, and, therefore, presumption of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 will not apply in the case of the present appellant. Moreover, there is no iota of evidence that the husband or his relative subjected the victim to cruelty. Although, the allegation of cruelty against the victim has been alleged, but does not inspire confidence on the basis of the above evidence. It can, therefore, safely be concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. The judgment rendered by the Trial Court is interferable.
18. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12.09.2003, passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttararkashi, in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 2002 is set aside. Consequently, conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused-appellant Balam Singh is also set aside. Accused-appellant Balam Singh is acquitted of charge of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender
19. Let lower court record be sent back for necessary action.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment