IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of the Case. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 67 of 2006 Date of decision :- 3rd July, 2008 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not approved for Reporting Initials of Judge Date: 03.07.2008 Note:- Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put up before the Judge for signature. HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Criminal Jail Appeal No. 67 of 2006 Nari Chand, S/o Shahi Chand, Village Kumal Gaon, P.S. Thal, Dist. Pithoragarh ..… Appellant Versus State …..Respondent Mr. J.S. Virk, Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. Government Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. This is a criminal jail appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 07/03/2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh in ST No. 37/2004, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B IPC & 498-A IPC and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven years and fine of rupees one thousand only under Section 304-B IPC & rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year and fine of rupees one thousand only under Section 498- A IPC. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. It was further directed that both the sentences would run concurrently. 2. The facts revealed from the record is that the complainant-Laxman Singh who is the uncle of the deceased Kamla Devi lodged a report on 16-5-2004 at about 1350 hours at police station Thal, District Pithoragarh against the accused-appellant. It has been alleged by the complainant-Laxman Singh in the report that on 08-5-2004 at about 1930 hours, he received information on phone from Jagdish Chand, the gram Pradhan of village Tari Gaon that his niece/the deceased- Kamla Devi (who got married on 07.2.2004 with the accused-appellant of that village), has committed suicide. On receiving the said information, he proceeded towards the said village on 09.5.2004 and reached there at about 1030 hours. Upon reaching the matrimonial house of her niece, he found that the police was present there and the dead body of her niece/deceased-Kamla Devi was hanging on a branch of tree. He found the hairs of the deceased were in disorder and her ‘mangalsutra’ as well as ear top of her left ear was missing from her person. Seeing the condition of the dead body of the deceased, the informant-Laxman Singh concluded that the deceased might have been ill treated or harassed by her-in-laws before her death. The informant-Laxman Singh also alleged in his report that the accused-appellant used to demand dowry from them. He also mentioned that just a day before the marriage of the deceased with the appellant, a sum of rupees twenty five thousand was demanded from them by the appellant’s family members and it was also intimidated that if the said demand is not fulfilled, the appellant would not bring the marriage prosecution to their house and would also cancel the marriage. The complainant paid the said amount to the appellant on the date of the marriage. After few days of the marriage, a ‘mangalsutra’ was also demanded which was given to the deceased. It is also alleged that the appellant made further demand of ring, nath and mangaltika from the deceased, upon which the appellant was assured that the said ornaments would be provided to him later on. But when the said demand of ornaments was not fulfilled, the deceased was instigated to commit suicide. A report with regard to the suicidal death of the deceased was sent by the gram pradhan to the authorities concerned. In consequent to the said report, the Tehsildar and the S.O. reached at the spot. The inquest report was prepared by the Tehsildar and postmortem was conducted by the doctors at the behest of the police. But the matter was investigated by the police only after receiving the report lodged by the informant/complainant-Laxman Singh on 16.5.2004. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the accused- appellant Nari Chand before the court concerned. 3. After submission of the chargesheet, the trial court framed charge against the appellant-Nari Chand under Sections 304-B/498-A IPC & ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused-appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Hira Devi as PW1 who is the aunt of the deceased-Kamla Devi; Dr. Lalit Mohan as PW2 who had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased-Kamla Devi; the complainant-Laxman Singh PW3 who is the uncle of the deceased; Kalawati as PW4 who is the mother of the deceased; the Investigating Officer-Anil Krishna Ved as PW5; the Tehsildar-Balveer Singh as PW6 & the Inspector-Arvind Dangwal as PW7. 5. The accused-appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and he has admitted that his marriage with the deceased was solemanized on 07.2.2004. The accused-appellant denied all the averments made in the evidence. He further stated that he had not harassed or committed cruelty upon the deceased and the deceased has committed suicide due to her own. The appellant further stated that perhaps the deceased was disheartened with the fact that the appellant was unemployed and considering that, appellant’s mother is not mentally sound and she has to look after her mother-in-law as well as the appellant’s widowed sister-in-law alongwith her children for whole life, she committed suicide. He has further stated that the deceased was of unstable mind. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused-appellant did not adduce any evidence either documentary or oral, in support of his defence. 6. The learned trial court after appreciation of the evidence found the appellant guilty of the offence, and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the evidence and material on record. 8. At the outset, it needs to be mentioned that there is no dispute that the deceased got married with the accused-appellant on 07.2.2004 and she died on 08.5.2004 i.e. within three months of her marriage. Her death occurred within seven years of her marriage. It is not in dispute that the deceased has committed suicide by way of hanging herself in a branch of tree near her matrimonial house. Thus, the deceased died an unnatural death. The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Lalit Mohan Joshi PW2 who has stated in his evidence that a ligature mark was present around the neck of the deceased and the death occurred due to asphyxia. He also stated in his evidence that upon medical examination of the deceased, he was of the opinion that the death of the deceased occurred three days prior to the date of postmortem. Since, the postmortem was conducted on 10.5.2004 at about 1010 hours and the death of the deceased has occurred on 08.5.2004, hence, it is amply proved that the death occurred on the date and time as alleged by the prosecution. 9. In the case in hand, the accused-appellant Nari Chand has been convicted under Section 304-B IPC & under Section 498-A IPC. It is pertinent to mention that to seek conviction under Section 304-B IPC against a person for the offence of dowry death, the prosecution is obliged to prove that; (i) the death of a woman was caused by burns or bodily injury or had occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii) such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (iii) the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband; (iv) such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry; and (v) to such cruelty or harassment the deceased should have been subjected soon before her death. In the above background, I have to examine as to whether the prosecution has proved the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC or not. It is not disputed that the death of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage and it is also amply established by the prosecution evidence that the deceased died within three months of her marriage. It is also fully established that the deceased died an unnatural death. Thus, ingredients (i) & (ii) of Section 304-B IPC have been proved by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the findings of the trial court to the above extent. 10. Now, I have to examine as to whether the ingredients (iii), (iv) & (v) of Section 304-B IPC are established by the prosecution evidence or not. The prosecution in support of its case examined Hira Devi PW1 who is the wife of the complainant-Laxman Singh PW3 as well as the aunt of the deceased. She has stated in her evidence that; the father of the deceased was missing for the last three years, as such, the deceased- Kamla Devi alongwith her mother Kalawati PW4 was residing with them; the marriage of the deceased was solemanized by them on 07.2.2004; at the time of the marriage, the appellant had demanded a sum of rupees twenty five thousand and it was also said that if the said demand is not fulfilled, the appellant-party would not bring the marriage prosecution (barat) to the house of the deceased; her husband/the complainant-Laxman Singh PW3 paid the said amount on the date of the marriage; when the deceased came to her parental house after few days of her marriage, she complained that the appellant demands money and Hira Devi PW1 used to pay her money so demanded; the deceased came to her parental house three times after the marriage; the deceased also demanded for a ‘mangalsutra’ of her own volition, which was given to her when she came to her parental house and after this, when the deceased went to her matrimonial house, the appellant also demanded for a ring, nath, mangaltika & other ornaments upon which the appellant was assured that the aforesaid ornaments would be given to him later on; and immediately after the aforesaid demand, the deceased committed suicide. 11. The informant-Laxman Singh PW3 has corroborated the evidence of Hira Devi PW1 in all material details. However, he has stated that the accused-appellant demanded the ‘mangalsutra‘ from him. He has further stated that when the demand of ring, nath, mangaltika and other ornaments was made by the appellants, he gave mangaltika, nath and ring to the deceased. He has also stated in his evidence that he lodged the report with regard to the death of the deceased on 16.5.2004 after ascertaining the facts from the neighbourhood as how she died and committed suicide. He proved the first information report as Ex. Ka 2. 12. The prosecution also examined Kalawati PW4, the mother of the deceased who has stated that the marriage of the deceased was solemanized on the 24th day of Magh (according to Hindu Calender) by the complainant- Laxman Singh PW3. She further stated that; her husband has been missing for the last three-four years; a sum of rupees twenty five thousand was demanded at the time of the marriage and the said amount was given by the complainant-Laxman Singh PW3 at the time of the marriage; the accused-appellant did not complain about anything except for the ornaments and the money; a ‘mangalsutra’ was given to the deceased after the marriage; and the girl was used to complain about the beating/illtreatment meted out to her in her matrimonial house. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that under Section 304 IPC, it must be proved that the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the dowry demand. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out there is contradictions between the statement of the complainant recorded at the time of the inquest report and the statement recorded before the court. The learned Addl. Government Advocate refuted the contention and supported the findings of the trial court. The inquest report Ex. Ka 6 clearly reveals that the Tehsildar has recorded the statement of the complainant- Laxman Singh PW3 at the time of preparation of the inquest report and which is as under: “c;ku Jh y{e.k flag Hk.Mkjh mez 48 o’kZ S/o xaxk flag C/o xzke xqjuk PO xqjuk Fkkuk fiFkkSjkx<+ us c;ku fd;k fd deyk esjs NksVs HkkbZ clUr flag dh yM+dh gSA bldh “kknh ekg Qjojh 7 rkjh[k dks gqbZ FkhA “kknh esa yM+ds us ¼ nkekn ujhpUn½ ngsat dh dksbZ ckr ugha dh FkhA yM+ds okys xjhc gS ;g ckr ge tkurs gSA ujhpUn ls esjh VsyhQksu ij “kknh ls ,d fnu igys dgk dh eq>s 25000 : dh t:jr gSA D;ksafd VsyhQksu ij og dkQh ladksp ls cksykA eSaus dgk fd eSa Rs. 25000/- nqWxk ysfdu ogh “kknh ds fnuA blds ,d iafMr th ihrkEcj nRr HkV th us Qksu djds dgk Fkk fd gekjh rjQ ls “kknh dSafly eSaus iqNk D;ksa rks cksys fd yM+ds us gedks vU/ksjs esa j[kk gSA [kSj “kknh ,d fnu esa gh 7 Qjojh 2004 dks lEiUu gqbZA bldh “kknh ds <ksy uxkM+s dk fdjk;k lc eSaus fn;kA “kknh ds ckn yM+dh us dHkh ;g ugha dgk fd eq>s ngst ds fy, nkekn rax djrk gSA ;k vius ek;ds ls lkeku@:i;k ysdj vkA ,slk D;ksa nks’k nsA ijUrq ?kVuk LFky dh fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, eSa pkgrk gqW fd “ko dk iksLVekVZe djk;k tk;A ” 14. The perusal of the above statement clearly reveals that the complainant-Laxman Singh PW3 has not uttered even a single word with regard to the demand for ‘mangalsutra’, ring, nath, mangaltika and other ornaments by the appellant. I am aware that though it is not required to the Tehsildar to record such a statement at the time of preparation of the inquest report but if it has been recorded it will be taken as a previous statement of the witness. This statement can be contradicted under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The complainant-Laxman Singh PW3 appeared before the court and was put to the said omission upon which he stated that he had never given any such statement to the Tehsildar. Though, Tehsildar-Balveer Singh PW6 has stated that the aforesaid statement was given by the complainant-Laxman Singh PW3. The witness Laxman Singh PW3 has categorically stated in his evidence before the court about the demand of the ornaments by the appellant but he was confronted with his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has not stated anything about the demand of ‘mangalsutra’ by the appellant, contra to it, he has stated in his cross-examination as under: “ ;g eSaus njksxk I.O. dks ;g crk;k Fkk fd “kknh ds rhljs&pkSFks fnu Hkrhth dFkk ds fy, gekjs ?kj vk;h Fkh Hkrhth dh ekWx ij ij ,d rksyk eaxylw= cukdj fn;k ;fn ;g esjs c;ku esa ugh gS rks bldh ctg ugha crk ldrkA” 15. It is also pertinent to mention here that when Hira Devi PW1-the aunt of the deceased appeared before the court, she has categorically stated that the said ‘mangalsutra’ was demanded by her niece/the deceased of her own violation and it was not demanded by the appellant whereas, when Laxman Singh PW3 appeared before the court, he had stated that the said demand was made by the appellant himself. Kalawati Devi PW4, the mother of the deceased also stated in her cross- examination that: ““kknh es tks tsoj eSaus yM+dh dks fn;k Fkk ml tsoj dks mlus esjs ogkW j[k fn;k Fkk vkSj mlh tsoj dks ysus ds fy, esjh yM+dh esjs ;gkW vkbZA eaxylw= eSaus yM+dh ds dgus ls cuk;kA ” 16. Hira Devi PW1-the aunt of the deceased has not stated anywhere in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC that the accused-appellant demanded for the ornaments, as was stated by her before the court. Thus, the prosecution has improved its case during the evidence though it was not made initially at the stage of the investigation. 17. It is also pertinent to mention here that the incident took place on 08.5.2004 and the statements of Laxman Singh, his elder brother Trilok Singh Bhandari, Prakash Singh Bhandari- the brother of the deceased were recorded by the Tehsildar at the time of preparation of the inquest report but none of the statement reveals that any harassment or cruelty was meted out to the deceased in connection with the dowry demand. After a lapse of eight days from the death of the deceased, the report was lodged by the complainant-Laxman Singh PW3 alleging therein that her niece/the deceased was instigated to commit suicide in connection with the dowry demand. The prosecution evidence did not inspire confidence that the death of the deceased occurred due to non-fulfilment of dowry demand. In view of the above, I do not find that the ingredients (iii), (iv) & (v) of Section 304-B IPC are proved by the prosecution evidence. 18. The learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that if Section 304-B IPC is not made out against the accused-appellant then in view of the statements on record, the case falls under Section 306 IPC. The learned Counsel for the appellant refuted the contention. Now I have to analyse as to whether the case under Section 306 is made out or not against the accused-appellant. Section 306 IPC relates to abetment of suicide. If any person commits suicide, and for that whoever abets/instigates the commission of such suicide, he shall be convicted under this section. The word ‘instigation’ means to urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. It is necessary that the prosecution should prove the facts which constitute instigation and that must specifically be suggestive of the consequence of suicide. Yet a reasonable certainity to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution is a vague one. There is vague evidence that the appellant/husband of the deceased used to beat her and harassed her. It is not the case that the accused-appellant by his acts and omissions or by continuing course of conduct or action has created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. While holding the guilty under Section 306 IPC, the court 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 infact inducted her to end her life by committing suicide. There was no evidence on record that the lady was so hypersensitive or some way a different than a reasonable person. Merely on the basis of tutored evidence that she was subjected to beating, intending the consequences to actually follow by the appellant cannot be said to be instigation to the deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088 has held as follows: “22. Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned. Evidential value of the two writings contained in diary, Article A is that of drying declarations. On the principle underlying admissibility of dying declaration in evidence that truth sits on the lips of a dying person and the court can convict an accused on the basis of such declaration where it inspires full confidence, there is no reason why the same principle should not be applied when such a dying declaration speaking of the cause of death exonerates the accused unless there is material available to form an opinion that the deceased while making such statement was trying to conceal the truth either having been persuaded to do so or because of sentiments for her husband. The writing on p. 11 of diary (Article A) clearly states that the cause for committing suicide was her own feeling ashamed of her own faults. She categorically declares - none to be held responsible or harassed for her committing suicide. The writing on p. 12 of diary (Article A) clearly suggests that sometime earlier also she had expressed her wish to commit suicide to her husband and the husband had taken a promise from her that she would not do so. On the date of the incident, the husband probably told the deceased that she was free to go wherever she wished and wanted to go and this revived the earlier impulse of the deceased for committing suicide. The dying declaration Ext. P-10 corroborates the inference flowing from the two writings contained in the diary and as stated hereinabove. The conduct of the accused trying to put off the fire and taking his wife to the hospital also improbabilises the theory of his having abetted suicide. 23. In our opinion there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted the commission of suicide by Seema may necessarily be drawn. The totality of the circumstances discussed hereinabove, especially the dying declaration and the suicide notes left by the deceased herself, which fall for consideration within the expression “all the other circumstances of the case” Employed in Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, do not permit the presumption thereunder being raised against the accused. The accused-appellant, therefore, deserves to be acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC.” 19. In the present case, there is no iota of evidence that the deceased was instigated to commit suicide. According to the medical report there were no anti-mortem injury on the person of the deceased. The doctor in the postmortem report has found a ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. The cause of death of the deceased in the report has been shown due to asphyxia, which happens due to ante-mortem hanging. It is apparent from the ligature mark and from the report of the doctor that the deceased herself committed suicide and there was no injury on the body of the deceased, as such, it cannot be inferred by any of the evidence of the prosecution that she was instigated to commit suicide. Thus, in view of the aforesaid findings, the case in hand also doesn’t fall under the ambit of Section 306 IPC. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, I am of view that it would not be safe to convict the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The prosecution has not established the guilt beyond and reasonable doubt against the appellant. I find that the learned trial court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Hence, the appeal is allowed and, the conviction & sentence against the appellant awarded by the trial court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 21. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned. The compliance report be submitted within a period of three months. (J.C.S. RAWAT, J.) Dated 03.07.2008 V.K.