State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Devkumar Suryawanshi

This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 05.11.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No. 35/2014, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.03.2013 at about 10:00 a.m., deceased- Seema Suryavanshi, lodged a report (Ex.P-8C) at

¶18

2

¶19

Police Station Anda alleging that at about 9:00 a.m. on the same day, her husband (respondent No.1) and father-in-law (respondent No.2) had assaulted her with hands and fists on suspicion of her character. Pursuant thereto, she was medically examined and as per MLC report (Ex.P-4), swelling near the wrist and a simple superficial scratch on the side of her face were found, which were opined to be simple in nature. Later, on the same day, Savitri Suryavanshi, mother-in-law of the deceased, informed the police that the deceased had left the house in the morning and, at about 6:00 p.m., she was found to have committed suicide by hanging herself with her saree on a plum tree in the field of one Girdhari Satnami at village Panbudakhar. Thereafter, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-6 and FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered against the accused persons. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-16 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. PW-12 Dr. N.C. Rai conducted the post-mortem examination and submitted his report vide Ex.P-19, opining that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging and that the nature of death was suicidal. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2, saree used in the offence was seized vide Ex.P-10, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused persons/respondents were taken into custody vide Exs.P-12A and P-13.

¶20

After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the competent trial Court. The accused persons/respondents denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and prayed for a trial.

¶21

3

¶22

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents herein of said charges leveled against them.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the said charges by recording perverse findings. He further submits that the evidence available on record clearly establishes that on the date of incident, the deceased herself had lodged a report against the accused persons alleging that, on suspicion of her character, they had assaulted her with hands and fists, and that on the very same day, she committed suicide by hanging herself from a plum tree. This, according to learned counsel, clearly demonstrates that the deceased was subjected to harassment and assault by the accused persons, as a consequence of which, she committed suicide. Despite such cogent and clinching evidence on record, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the material evidence in its proper perspective, committed a grave error in acquitting the accused persons/respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused persons/respondents supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused persons/respondents, in any manner, instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide either on account of any demand for dowry or on suspicion of her character. He further submits that PW-8 Reni Bai Yadav, mother of the deceased and PW-9 Raju Yadav, father of the

¶25

4

¶26

deceased, have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is well-reasoned and calls for no interference by this Court. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of Supreme Court in the matters of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs State of Gujarat¹ and Ghusabhai Raisanghai Chorasiya and Ors.² .

¶27

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

¶28

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala³ has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶29

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶30

The first question for consideration is whether the death of the deceased- Seema Suryavanshi, was suicidal in nature.

¶31

Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard and held the death of deceased- Seema Suryavanshi to be suicidal in nature relying upon the expert medical opinion of Dr. N.C. Rai (PW-12) who has proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-19) in which cause of death of deceased was asphyxia as a result of hanging and that the nature of death was suicidal. Considering the statement of Dr. N.C. Rai

¶32

1 (2013) 10 SCC48

¶33

2 (2015) 11 SCC 753

¶34

3 (2022) 8 SCC 440

¶35

5

¶36

(PW-12) as well as the postmortem report (Ex.P-19), I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased- Seema Suryavanshi to be suicidal in nature and I hereby affirm the said finding recorded by the trial Court.

¶37

Now, the next question for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the aforesaid offences?

¶38

In order to bring home the charge under Section 306 against the accused, the prosecution is first required to prove that there was abetment on the part of the accused as defined under Section 107 of IPC which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Section 107 of IPC reads as under:-

¶39

“107. Abetment of a thing - A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

¶40

Firstly – 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 any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶41

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.”

¶42

To attract the provisions of Section 498-A of the IPC against the accused persons/appellants, the following ingredients, as contained therein, are required to be examined, which read as under:-

¶43

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

¶44

Explanation .—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—

¶45

(a) anywilful 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

¶46

6

¶47

(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.”

¶48

In the light of the above enunciation of law, the facts of the present case are required to be examined minutely.

¶49

PW-8 Reni Bai Yadav, mother of the deceased, has stated that she never met her daughter from the time she went to reside with respondent No.1 until her death. In her cross-examination, she admitted that after the deceased left her husband- Rajesh and went to village Konari, she (deceased) never met her or PW-9 Raju Yadav. She further admitted that on one occasion, PW-9 Raju Yadav, along with the son-inlaw, had gone to bring the deceased- Seema, back, but she refused to return, and thereafter they never met her again. She also admitted that she does not know the reason as to why her daughter/deceased committed suicide. Thus, this witness has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.

¶50

PW-9 Raju Yadav, father of the deceased, has stated that his daughter/deceased had left with the accused/respondent No.1. He has further stated that he along with his son-in-law had gone to village Kutharel to bring her back, but she refused to return and after that, he had no contact with deceased and has no knowledge as to how her daughter/deceased died. In his cross-examination, he admitted that while the deceased was residing in the house of accused/respondent No.1 and prior to her death, she never reported any harassment or torture by the accused persons, nor did he receive any such information. He further admitted that when he had gone to the house of accused/respondent No.1 to bring the deceased back, she was residing

¶51

7

¶52

there happily. He has also stated that during her lifetime, the deceased never told him or his wife that the accused persons had beaten, harassed or tortured her. He further admitted that after leaving the house of her husband- Rajesh, the deceased had been residing with accused/respondent No.1 and that neither he nor his wife was ever informed by the deceased of any assault, harassment or cruelty by the accused persons. Thus, this witness has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case.

¶53

From perusal of the aforesaid evidence of the parents of the deceased, it appears that the deceased herself was residing with the accused/respondent No.1 and that when her father (PW-9) had gone to bring her back, she refused to return and during her lifetime, the deceased did not inform her parents that she was subjected to any harassment, torture, cruelty, or assault by the accused persons. Although on the date of the incident, at about 10:00 a.m., the deceased had lodged a report (Ex.P-8C) alleging that the accused persons had assaulted her with hands and fists on suspicion of her character and later the same day, at about 6:00 p.m., she committed suicide by hanging herself from a plum tree, but there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to establish that the accused persons had, in fact, assaulted the deceased on suspicion of her character or in connection with any demand for dowry and that they, in any manner, instigated or abetted her to commit suicide. Furthermore, the parents of the deceased (PW-8 and PW-9) have also not stated that the deceased ever informed them that the accused persons used to assault her on suspicion of her character. It is pertinent to mention here that had the deceased been subjected to assault, cruelty, or harassment on account of her character

¶54

8

¶55

or for demand of dowry, she would definitely have disclosed such facts to her parents; however, no such disclosure was ever made. Apart from this, PW-12 Dr. N.C. Rai, who conducted the post-mortem examination and proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-19), did not notice any external injury on the body of the deceased. Though, as per the MLC report (Ex.P-4) proved by PW-2 Dr. Amit Kumar Chandrakar, only a superficial scratch measuring about 1 cm was found on the side of her face, which was simple in nature, but the said injury cannot, by itself, be considered sufficient to constitute abetment to commit suicide.

¶56

It is to be seen at this juncture, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal (supra), where the Supreme Court was dealing with a question as to whether the extramarital relationship between the appellant and the second respondent therein led to cruelty upon his wife within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC and, whether that would amount to abetment leading to the act of suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of IPC and after considering the said issue, it was opined at para 27 as under :-

¶57

"27. Section 306 refers to abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the accused. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission of suicide. But for the alleged extramarital relationship, which if proved, could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced the wife to commit suicide".

¶58

Likewise, in the matter of Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya (Supra), it

¶59

9

¶60

was held by the Supreme Court that even if the illicit relationship is proved, unless some other acceptable evidence is brought on record to establish such high degree of mental cruelty to drive the woman to commit suicide, the cruelty defined under Section 498-A of IPC, would not be attracted. The relevant observation made therein at paragraph 21 reads as under :-

¶61

"21. ....True it is, there is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, we are of the considered opinion that cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498-A IPC would not get attracted. It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide. Mere extramarital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, as has been said in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal , but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide….."

¶62

In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, it is, thus, evident that there is no cogent, consistent, or reliable material on record to establish that the deceased was subjected to torture, harassment, or assault by the accused persons/respondents on suspicion of her character, and that the accused persons/respondents, in any manner, instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of legally acceptable evidence of cruelty, harassment, instigation, or demand of dowry, the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC are not made out against the accused persons/respondents.”

¶63

The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and upon analyzing the entire material on record, has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused persons/respondents, on suspicion of the character of the deceased or on account of any demand for dowry, assaulted her and

¶64

10

¶65

that they, in any manner, instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide and as such, acquitted them of the said charges leveled against them.

¶66

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the learned trial Court, I am of considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons/respondents herein of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶67

Accordingly, this appeal by the Appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons/respondents herein is hereby dismissed.

¶68

Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶69

Akhilesh

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Devkumar Suryawanshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State Of Chhattisgarh v. Devkumar Suryawanshi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Asha Soni Vs Durgesh Kumar Soni

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Umendra Rana

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rambilas

Chhotelal and Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dhananjay Mahar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

C.g. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.