Santosh Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.06.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Sessions Case-100 of 2002, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that deceased- Rukhmini Bai was married with the appellant-01 Santokh Kumar Verma four years back from the date of incident. From their wedlock, she delivered a male child after about one year of her marriage, after about two and half years of birth of her first child, she delivered a girl child.On 31.05.2002 at about 7.25 A.M., appellant-01 has given a merg intimation to the police outpost Chikhli, P.S. Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, that in the midnight when he woke up, he

¶15

Cra 654 of 2003

¶16

2

¶17

could not find his wife and child in his house, on making search at Railway Station and Bus Stand also, he could not find them, and in the morning when he was going for answering the nature’s call, he saw the dead body of his wife and daughter on the side of Up-line of Railway Track. Thereafter, he gave the merg intimation to the police vide Ex.P24 and Ex.P25 respectively.

¶18

The un-numbered merg intimation was sent to the Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, where numbered merg intimation was recorded as Ex.P22. Inquest of the dead bodies of deceased Rukhmani Bai, wife of the appellant and Ku.Priti, daughter of the appellant was prepared vide Ex. P4 and Ex.P5 respectively, in presence of the witnesses, and both dead bodies were sent for post mortem to the District Hospital, Rajanandgaon, vide memo Ex.P26 and P27, where a team of doctors consisting of Dr. Vinod Lohiya PW4 and Dr. Shail Khare PW5, conducted post mortem of the body of deceased persons and gave their report vide Ex.P15 and P16 respectively.

¶19

a) While conducting the post mortem of the body of deceased Rukhmani Bai, wife of appellant-01 the doctors have noticed following injuries over the body of deceased :-

¶20

Abrasion over Lt. leg deemed swelling, size 4 x 1 cm. Cut injury over Lt. side of face in front of ear, size 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. The doctors found the fracture of Occipital bone. The cause of death opined is, shock due to injury to vital organ (brain), and duration of death is within 12 hrs from the time of PM

¶21

b) While conducting the post mortem of the body of deceased Ku. Priti, daughter of appellant-01, the doctors have noticed the following injuries :-

¶22

1.Fracture of Rt. Parietal & Occipital bone of skull.

¶23

2.The cause of death opined, is shock due to injuries to vital organ(brain), and duration of death within 12 hrs from the time of PM

¶24

Cra 654 of 2003

¶25

3

¶26

Pieces of broken bangles of the deceased- Rukhmani Bai, iron bangle of the child, one broken bangle of black colour and 6 pieces of stones stained with blood have been seized from the Railway Track vide Ex.P6. On 31.05.2002, Marriage Card of the deceased-Rukhmani Bai and accused Santosh Kumar Verma has also been seized vide Ex.P8; the letter dated 15.02.2001 allegedly said to be written by the accused Santosh Kumar Verma was seized vide Ex. P9 and the letter allegedly written by deceased Rukhmani Bai was seized vide Ex.P10. Said marriage card, mark-sheet, and letters are Ex. P11 to P14 respectively.

¶27

On 31-05-2002, the complainant-Chaitram Verma (PW8), father of the deceased-Rukhmani Bai lodged a written report to the police vide Ex. P20, alleging that 04 years back, his daughter was married to the accused appellant Santosh Kumar Verma and he gave them sufficient dowry and articles at the time of their marriage. After the marriage, his son-in-law, and his mother Goutarhin Bai (appellant-2) started assaulting the deceased-Rukhmani Bai and even after their request not to do so, they continued harassing his daughter and confined her in a room on petty issues. After birth of her child, when they visited her on the occasion of ‘ chatti’ ( 6^th day occasion), she informed him that she fed-up with the behavior of her husband because, he regularly come in drunken condition and used to beat her. They have tried to pacify her, but the harassment continued. She went out of her house for some time, and after some time, again she went to Allahabad. A village meeting was also convened in which accused-Santosh Kumar Verma has given in writing that he will not repeat the act of harassment with his daughter.

¶28

Cra 654 of 2003

¶29

4

¶30

When she delivered her second child (girl child), the accused persons have not informed them and have not sent the deceased to her parents’ house. On that morning, Ghanshyam Verma informed his son Milind Verma about the incident, then he came to lodge the report, and based on the written report, the police outpost Chikhli has registered the unnumbered FIR for the offence under Section 304-B, 34 of I.P.C. against the appellants vide Ex.P21. The numbered FIR Ex. P-23 has been registered on 31.05.2002 against the accused persons. Statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded by the police and after arresting the accused persons and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 25.06.2002 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A, and 34 of the IPC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon.

¶31

The case was committed for trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, on 02.07.2002, from where it was transferred to the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Rajnandgaon, for its trial.

¶32

The learned trial court has framed charges under Section 498-A, 304-B, 306 of I.P.C. against the accused persons. They abjured their guilt, pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

¶33

To establish charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the CrPC of the accused persons have been recorded in which they denied the material appearing against them and pleaded innocence and submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the offence. On the

¶34

Cra 654 of 2003

¶35

5

¶36

date of incident, the deceased Rukhmani Bai went for answering the nature’s call towards Railway Track, he was loving his wife and child very much and another child is with him.

¶37

After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons from the charge under Section 304-B of I.P.C. but has convicted and sentenced them for commission of offence under Section 306 and 498-A of the IPC, as mentioned in para 01 of this judgement. Hence, this appeal.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the offence. No offences are made out against the appellants as alleged. There is no harassment given by the appellants to the deceased Rukhmani Bai and was not treated with cruelty at any point of time. There is no instigation or abetment to commit suicide from the accused persons. The witnesses have admitted that the deceased Rukhmani Bai was happy while living with the appellants and she made no complaint to her parents against the appellants. There is no harassment to her so as to drove her to commit suicide. He would further submit that deceased-Rukhmani Bai was in the habit of fleeing from her house, without informing anyone and after sometime returns back. A village meeting was also convened for this purpose and in that meeting she has given assurance in writing that she will not repeat the incident. Since she was having an unbalanced state of mind, she herself went along with her 08 months old daughter, and dashed with the train, and therefore her dead body was found on the side of Railway Track. Since the accused persons have not treated her with

¶39

Cra 654 of 2003

¶40

6

¶41

cruelty and there was no instigation or abetment to commit suicide, the offences as alleged are not made out against the appellants and they are entitled for acquittal.

¶42

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the state, vehemently opposes the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the prosecution has proved their case beyond any reasonable doubt. Within seven years of marriage, deceased-Rukhmani Bai and her daughter died in un-natural circumstances. There is ample evidence on record regarding the harassment by the accused persons to the deceased. The accused persons have failed to give plausible explanation as to the circumstances under which the deceased met with an unnatural death. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs no interference.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence available on record.

¶44

PW8, Chaitram, the father of the deceased-Rukhmani Bai, has stated in his deposition that his daughter got married to appellant No.1 since 05 years back. At the time of her marriage, he gave sufficient dowry. When his daughter went to her matrimonial house, the accused persons started harassing her which was narrated to him whenever she comes to her parents’ house. They tried to pacify her saying that in future all would be set right. They also requested accused Santosh Kumar Verma not to harass their daughter but he did not stop the harassment,

¶45

Cra 654 of 2003

¶46

7

¶47

due to which she went to Allahabad and after about 5-6 months, she returned back to her matrimonial home. Upon asking her, she narrated that she went there because of harassment given by the accused persons. He further stated that in the village meeting, the accused Santosh Kumar Verma has given in writing (Ex.P14), that he will not harass her in future. Deceased Rukhmani Bai also gave in writing vide Ex. P13 that she will not go outside without information. Thereafter, Rikhmani Bai gave birth to her second child. On the date of incident, at about 6-00 AM in the morning, Ghanshyam Verma has informed him about the death of his daughter at the Railway Track along with her daughter. Thereafter, he lodged the written report to the police. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that since last one year, he has not met with his daughter. Neither she came to his house, nor he went to her house. Since last one year, there is no conversation between them. He also admitted in his evidence that his daughter, deceased- Rukhmani Bai went somewhere twice, without information. Once she returned home after 5-6 months and in the second time, his son-in-law and other villagers have taken her back. When his son-in-law (appellant No.1) and the villagers were taking the deceased back to the village, they told him that his daughter repeatedly going somewhere without information, and by that act of her, they were being defamed in the society, and asked her not to do so. He denied lodging of the written report Ex.P20. He does not know who has written the report and who gave it to the police. This witness has further admitted that at the time of marriage, there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons and till the death of his daughter, no demand of any dowry was ever made by the accused

¶48

Cra 654 of 2003

¶49

8

¶50

persons. He further admits that whenever his daughter made complaint to him, she only made complaint about drinking liquor of her husband and except that no other allegation she had levelled against the accused persons. He further said that whenever his daughter went somewhere, her husband came to his house in her search. On the date of incident also, he came to his house in the early morning to ask the whereabouts of his wife and informed that she went outside since night for answering the nature call but did not return. He further stated that the persons gathered on the spot have narrated him that the deceased went for answering the call of nature and met with the train accident. This witness has further said that they have lodged the report because they went under the sorrow on account of death of his daughter and to take revenge, and they are not in the knowledge of any reason why she has committed suicide.

¶51

P.W. 10, Paltin Bai, who is the mother of the deceased Rukhmani Bai, has stated in her deposition that after the marriage, when her daughter came to her house, she disclosed that she was being tortured by her husband and mother-in-law. She also stated that her daughter went somewhere for some time because of the harassment given by the accused persons and thereafter a village meeting was convened and both the parties have given their written assurance. In cross examination, she has stated that first son was born after about one and half year of her marriage and till that time, there was no allegation of any harassment from her in-laws. At the time when she went somewhere for about 5-6 months and the villagers have taken her back, she disclosed that on

¶52

Cra 654 of 2003

¶53

9

¶54

account of harassment of her husband and mother-in-law, she went somewhere but she has not disclosed this fact as to what type of harassment deceased was facing. She further admits that when Rukhmani Bai went somewhere second time, her husband had taken her and refused to keep her with him because they feel ashamed and defamed in the society. She further admits that after the village meeting, she never met with her daughter which was the period about one year and three months. She did not know about the behavior of the accused persons between that period. She has further stated that she has not given any statement to the police and has not given any statement regarding harassment by accused persons to her daughter. Appellant-1 or his family members have never demanded anything from them and since they are annoyed from the death of her daughter, they are making statement of harassment to her daughter. The true fact is that till her lifetime, there was no any harassment to her daughter-Rukhmani Bai.

¶55

PW13, Jhadu Ram, who is uncle of the deceased Rukhmani Bai have stated in his deposition that he is residing nearby the house of Chaitram, father of the deceased-Rukhmani Bai. He came to know that twice Rukhmani Bai went somewhere for the reason of harassment given by the accused persons to her and a village meeting was convened regarding this. In the meeting, allegations were levelled from both sides and when both the parties gave their assurance in writing, deceasedRukhmani Bai agreed to go along with her husband. Their written assurance is Ex.P13 and Ex.P14. Subsequently, he came to know about the death of Rukhmani Bai and her daughter in the train accident. In his

¶56

Cra 654 of 2003

¶57

10

¶58

cross examination, this witness said that the time gap between the village meeting and her death is about one and half year. After the village meeting, he has not received any complaint against the accused persons. He has further admitted that the accused persons kept the deceased Rukhmani Bai in happy atmosphere.

¶59

PW14, Gendram, who is the grandparent of deceased-Rukhmani Bai in relation, has stated in his deposition that there was a village meeting on the issue that the Santosh Kumar Verma and his family members were harassing Rukhmani Bai after consuming liquor. Santosh has admitted his guilt and assured that he will not repeat the same in future and thereafter, they pacify the deceased and send her along with her husband. After one year she delivered her second child and after some time he came to know that Rukhmani Bai and her child died in the train accident. In cross examination this witness said that after one and half year of the village meeting, Rukhmani Bai died. He admitted that before and after the village meeting, he has not heard any complaint against the accused persons.

¶60

PW17 Jivrakhan Verma, has stated in his deposition that in the village meeting, on the instance of Santosh, compromise has taken place between the parties and Rukhmani Bai went alongwith him. After some time he came to know that Rukhmani Bai has died in a train accident. In his cross examination he admitted that in the village meeting when Rukhmani Bai was asked about the harassment in her matrimonial house, then she answered that she is having no harassment in her matrimonial house and she wants to reside in her matrimonial house.

¶61

Cra 654 of 2003

¶62

11

¶63

PW18, Parasram, who is also grandparent in relation to the deceased, stated in his deposition that in the village meeting, Rukhmani Bai stated that she was being harassed by the accused persons and therefore, she left her house. On being asked from appellant-1, he admitted his guilt and assured that he will not repeat it in future. After some time he came to know that Rukhmani Bai died in a train accident. In his cross examination, this witness has also admitted that before and after the village meeting, he has not heard any complaint against the accused persons. In the village meeting there was no complaint against the mother of Santosh Kumar Verma, namely, Goutarhin Bai, appellant-2. Deceased-Rukhmani Bai only made allegation that Santosh Kumar Verma occasionally come home in drunken state and no other complaint has been made by her.

¶64

PW1, Tulsi Das, the Patwari, who has prepared the spot map Ex.P1; PW2 Anusuiya Bai who is the witness of inquest Ex.P2, P3, P4 and P5. P.W. 3 Shishupal is also the witness of inquest Ex.P2 to P5 and the witness of seizure memo Ex.P6 to P14. In his cross examination he has stated that except the mark-sheet and marriage card of the deceased, no other article was kept before him. PW4 and PW5 are the doctors who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased persons and gave their reports vide Ex.P15 and P16. PW6 Khemlal accompanied Ghanshyam Verma while he was going to village Dilapahri, because the deceased Rukhmani Bai went somewhere. He was present in the village meeting and in the meeting, Rukhmani Bai said that she lost her mental equilibrium and therefore she had gone. This

¶65

Cra 654 of 2003

¶66

12

¶67

witness has turned hostile and denied to give police statement. In his cross examination, this witness has said that Rukhmani Bai is her sister in relation, she used to go somewhere because she lost her mental balance which was also admitted by her in the village meeting. Whenever he went to her matrimonial house, he asked her about any problem she is facing at her matrimonial home, but she has not disclosed about any harassment from the accused persons, instead she said that her husband is beloved to her and her mother-in-law is treating her as her daughter. He further said that a day before the date of her death, he went to her house and asked her about her well-being, then she answered that she is depressed because after delivery she is suffering from ailment and despite having medicine, there is no recovery from her ailment. This witness is very important on the point that a day prior to the date of death of Rukhmani Bai he met her but she has not made any complaint to him regarding any harassment by the accused persons, rather she was feeling depressed for the reason that she is not getting any relief despite taking medicine.

¶68

PW7, Videshi has stated in his deposition that in the village meeting called by Ghanshyam Verma, the deceased Rukhmani Bai had said that she is feeling depressed because she is not getting well despite having medicine and they suggested her to go to her matrimonial house and take medicine there. This witness has turned hostile and in cross examination, he has reiterated the same statement as given in chief examination and further stated that she has not made any complaint against the accused persons in the village meeting. PW9, Madhusudan

¶69

Cra 654 of 2003

¶70

13

¶71

Yadav is the witness of inquest Ex.P2 to P5. PW11, Tulsi Ram, head constable, has recorded merg intimation Ex.P22. PW12, Ishwar Lal, Head constable, stated that he recorded the FIR Ex.P23 based on unnumbered FIR Ex.P21.

¶72

PW15, Manish Kumar Sharma, who is the investigating officer, who conducted part of investigation, is the witness of the various seizure memos Ex.P7 to P14 and P18 to P19. PW16, BR Dhruva, who is the Naib Tahsildar, have prepared the inquest of dead body of the deceased persons. PW19, Bhaiya Lal is also the witness of inquest Ex.P2 to P5. PW20, S. K. Pathak, is also the investigating officer and conducted part of investigation and witness of Ex.P6, P21, P24 to P27. He stated in his deposition that he investigated about the train from which the accident takes place, but no information could be received, and the Station Master was also unaware about the train from which the accident took place.

¶73

Close scrutiny of the evidence available on record makes it clear that the parents and other family members of the deceased-Rukhmani Bai were not in contact with her since one and half year, and there is no allegation against the accused persons by the deceased regarding any harassment from them. Twice, she went somewhere and in first occasion she returned after 5-6 months and in the second occasion she was brought back by her husband and villagers. Thereafter, in village meeting also she confess that she lost her mental equilibrium and therefore she had gone somewhere. In fact, parents of the deceased have stated that there is no allegation of any harassment against the accused persons. In between the village meeting and her death, there was a time gap of about

¶74

Cra 654 of 2003

¶75

14

¶76

one and half year and in between that period, there was no allegation of any harassment rather, they were living happily, and she gave birth to a girl child. A day prior to her death, PW6 Khem Lal met the deceased in her matrimonial house, but she has not alleged about the harassment given by the accused persons. It appears from the evidence led by the prosecution that neither there is any evidence of harassment given by the accused persons nor any evidence of abatement to commit suicide.

¶77

Having gone through the evidence available on record, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has sought to improve its case at the trial by introducing new facts and allegations which were never stated during the investigation. All that appears to have been established is that the husband of the deceased was addicted to consuming liquor and often came to house in drunken condition. Though in the written report lodged by the father of the deceased, allegations have been made against the appellants but there is his evidence itself that his daughter was living happily in her matrimonial house and since more than one and half years he has not heard any complaint against the accused persons. The mother of the deceased and her other relatives have also said that the deceased had not made any complaint regarding any harassment made by the accused persons. In view of the evidence available on record, the prosecution very well established its case only to the extent that the appellant- Santosh Kumar Verma was addicted to consuming liquor which was opposed by his wife and on account of such objection there may be some quarrel between them. Beyond this, I find the other allegations made by the prosecution to be unacceptable.

¶78

Cra 654 of 2003

¶79

15

¶80

24. In the matter of Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana , 2004 (12) SCC

¶81

257, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 12 to 15 that :-

¶82

The question then arises as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant can be convicted of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. with the aid of the presumption under Section 113 A of the Indian Evidence Act. Any person who abets the commission of suicide is liable to be punished under Section 306 I.P.C. Section 107 I.P.C. lays down the ingredients of abetment which includes instigating any person to do a thing or engaging with one or more person in any conspiracy for the doing of a thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thing, or intentional aid by any act or illegal omission to the doing of that thing. In the instant case there is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant either aided or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or entered into any conspiracy to aid her in committing suicide. In the absence of direct evidence the prosecution has relied upon Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act under which the Court may presume on proof of circumstances enumerated therein, and having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that the suicide had been abetted by the accused. The explanation to Section 113-A further clarifies that cruelty shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which means:-

¶83

"498-A (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand".

¶84

Unlike Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on proof of the circumstances enumerated in Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. Under Section 113- A of the Indian Evidence Act the prosecution has first to establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband (in this case) had subjected her to cruelty. Even if these facts are established the Court is not bound to presume that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. Section 113-A gives a discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption, having regard to all the

¶85

Cra 654 of 2003

¶86

16

¶87

other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty it must consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of word cruelty in Section 498-A I.P.C. The mere fact that a woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage and that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, does not automatically give rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abetted by her husband. The Court is required to look into all the other circumstances of the case. One of the circumstances which has to be considered by the Court is whether the alleged cruelty was of such nature as was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health of the woman. The law has been succinctly stated in RameshKumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 wherein this Court observed :

¶88

"12. This provision was introduced by the Criminal Law (Second) Amendment Act, 1983 with effect from 26-12-1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof where helpless married women were eliminated by being forced to commit suicide by the husband or in-laws and incriminating evidence was usually available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was not available to anyone outside the occupants of the house. However, still it cannot be lost sight of that the presumption is intended to operate against the accused in the field of criminal law. Before the presumption may be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading of Section 113-A shows that to attract applicability of Section 113-A, it must be shown that (i) the woman has committed suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid circumstances, the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. Parliament has chosen to sound a note of caution. Firstly, the presumption is not mandatory; it is only permissive as the employment of expression "may presume" suggests. Secondly, the existence and availability of the abovesaid three circumstances shall not, like a formula, enable the presumption being drawn; before the presumption may be drawn the court shall have to have regard to "all the other circumstances of the case". A consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of the court to abstain from drawing the presumption. The expression "the other circumstances of the case" used in Section 113- A suggests the need to reach a cause-and-effect relationship between the cruelty and the suicide for the purpose of raising a presumption. Last but not the least, the presumption is not an irrebuttable one. In spite of a presumption having been raised the evidence adduced in defence or the facts and circumstances otherwise

¶89

Cra 654 of 2003

¶90

17

¶91

available on record may destroy the presumption. The phrase "may presume" used in Section 113-A is defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, which says "Whenever it is provided by this Act that the court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it".

¶92

The same principle has been reiterated in Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371.

¶93

In the State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. (1994) 1 SCC 73 this Court observed :

¶94

"15. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act.

¶95

Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater [(1950) 2 All ER 458,459] has observed that the doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject- matter".

¶96

25. In the matter of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab , 2017 (1)

¶97

SCC 433, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 20 to 30 that :-

¶98

Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus:

¶99

“Abetment of suicide. – If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶100

It is thus manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The basic

¶101

Cra 654 of 2003

¶102

18

¶103

ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC, thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.

¶104

Section 107 IPC defines abetment and is extracted hereunder:

¶105

“107. Abetment of a thing. – A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First – Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

¶106

Explanation 1 – A person, who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that doing.

¶107

Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

¶108

Not only the acts and omissions defining the offence of abetment singularly or in combination are enumerated therein, the explanations adequately encompass all conceivable facets of the culpable conduct of the offender relatable thereto.

¶109

Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman by her husband or any relative of his, if it is proved that she had committed the act within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of his had subjected her to cruelty. The explanation to this Section exposits “cruelty” to have the same meaning as attributed to this expression in Section 498A IPC. For ready reference, Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 is quoted hereunder as well.

¶110

“113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman—When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may

¶111

Cra 654 of 2003

¶112

19

¶113

presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.”

¶114

Explanation—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” shall have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

¶115

In the legislative backdrop outlined hereinabove, Section 498A of the Code also demand extraction.

¶116

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

¶117

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶118

Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-

¶119

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶120

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

¶121

This provision, as the quote hereinabove reveals, renders the husband of a woman or the relative of his, punishable thereby with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also fine, if they or any one of them subject her to cruelty. The explanation thereto defining “cruelty” enfolds:

¶122

a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶123

b) harassment of the woman, where it is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her, to meet such demand.

¶124

Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.

¶125

The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab (2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out hereunder.

¶126

“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which

¶127

Cra 654 of 2003

¶128

20

¶129

can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶130

In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, this Court has observed that the courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences 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.”

¶131

Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.

¶132

That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option, had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.

¶133

In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.

¶134

After considering the entire evidence on record, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence on record does not demonstrate

¶135

Cra 654 of 2003

¶136

21

¶137

with unqualified clarity and conviction, any role of the appellants as contemplated by the above provisions so as to hold an unassailable finding of their culpability under Sections 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. The material on record does not suggest any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to provoke or compel the deceased to commit suicide with no alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellants with the required provocative culpability is proved by the prosecution to infer that the deceased has been put to such a condition either physically or mentally that she had chosen to commit suicide.

¶138

In the result, the appeal is allowed . The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by trial court is set-aside, the appellants are acquitted from the charges of section 498-A and 306 of the IPC. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are continued for a further period of 06 months as provided under section 437-A of the CrPC.

¶139

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶140

padma

Santosh Kumar Verma and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Santosh Kumar Verma and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Girvar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Bakhla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Firuram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Satish Kumar Singh Vs Union of India

Vinod Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jeet Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh