HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal ADpealNo.205 of 1991 APPELLANT: Smt. Krishna Bai RESPQNDENT: Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now State ofChhattisgarh) rd Post for pronouncement of judamenton 23ra Julv. 201 O Sd/- , ' T.P.Sharma Judge -TfKW^*^^'- HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (Accused) RESPQNDENT: Criminal ADpealNo.205 of 1991 Smt. Krishna Bai, aged about 51 years, wife of Shri Ghanshyam Singh Baghel, occupation house lady, resident of Ganj Chowk, Rajnaridgaon, Tahsil & Distt. Rajnandgaon (M.P.) (nowC.G.) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh), through Police Station Rajnandgaon (MP) (now CG) {Criminal appeal underSection 374 (4) oftheCode ofCriminal Proeedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Malay Kumar Bhaduriwith Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsyan, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent. Sjnale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J -. JUDGMENT (Delivered on23rdJu!y, 2010) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the jydgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 18-2-91 passed by the 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in SessionsTrial No. 103/89, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding theappetlant guilty for commission of offence under Sections 306 & 498A of the I.P.C., sentenced her to undergo R.l. for three years andoneyear, respectively. Both the sentences were directed to be run.concurrently. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant and thereby committed illegality. • Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Smt. Bhagwati Bai (since deceased) - wife of co-accused Sunil Kumar & daughter-in-lawof the appellant was residing in the house of the appellant, the appellant used to commit torture and cruelty upon her and as a result of such torture & cruelty.she committed suicide by hanging on 8-8-89. Merg was intimated vide Ex.P-16. F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P-20. After ' summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-1, inquestover the dead body of % 1 . .• : " 2 ; . . 9 3 ' ' •^••y' • • . - Bhagwati Bai was prepared vide Ex.P-2. One diary of Bhagwati Bai Ex.P-4 was seized vide Ex.P-3. Letter Ex-.P-S was seized vide Ex.P'8. Dead body of Bhagwati Bai was sent for autopsy vide Ex.P-12 to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon, autopsy was conducted by a team of doctors vide Ex.P-12A and cause ofdeath was found to be asphyxia asaresult of hanging. Broken bolt was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-9. One letter wasseized vide Ex.P-10 from the house of the deceased. Another letter was also seized vide Ex.P-11 from the houseofthe deceased. Qne torn lungi was seized vide Ex.P-15. Sickle was seized vide Ex.P- 19. • , : ^ . ' '' ! , :' ' 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.. After completion ofinvestigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajnandgaon who in turn, committed the case to the Court pf Sessions, Rajnandgaon, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge received the case on transferfortrial. 4. In order to provethe guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as seventeen witnesses. The accused were examined underSection 313of the Cr.P.C. in which theydenied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocenee and false implication. t 5. After affording opportunityof hearing to the parties, while acquitting husband & father-in-law of the deceased learned Additional Sessions Judge hasconvicted &sentenced the appellant intheaforesaid manner. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.perusedthejudgmentand recordofthe trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the present case, twoaccused have been acqujttedon the same set of evidence, but the appellant herein has been convicted on the same set of evidence. The appellant herein is also entitled for equal treatment. The prosecution witnesses have deposed bald & omnibus statements relating to all the accused persons. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is notsufficient for drawing inference that the appell.ant has aided, instigated or abetted the commission of suicide ofthe deceased. The appellant has not committedcruelty & torture upon the deceased. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matterof Sanju alias Sanjay SinghSengarv. State ofM.P. in which the Apex Courthas held thatin order to prove instigation or abetment, the prosecution is required to prove mens rea behind the incitement or urging to do so, only uttering of words "to go and die" is not sufficient for abetment. Evenotherwise, if a woman of disturbed statementof mind commitssuicide, the accusedare not liable for cQmmission of offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C.. Learned counselfurther placed reliance in the matterof Ramesh Kumar, v. State of Chhattisgarh in which the Apex Court has held that mere conviction ofthe appellant under Section 498Aof tMe I.P.C. is not sufficient for his conviction under Section 306 of the I.P.C.. Learned counsel also placed reliance in the matter of Hans Raj v. State of Haryana inwhich the Apex Court has held that fFequent quarrels between husband and wife sometimes resulting in physical assault on account of husband being addicted to consumption of 'Bhang1 does not give presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.for commission of abetment of suicide, however, conviction of the accused under Section 498A would bejustified. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inferehce that theappellant has committed cruelty & torture upon the deceased and has abetted the commission of suicide ofthe deceased. • . 9. In order to appreciate the argumentsadvanced on behalfof the parties, 1 have examined the evidence available on record. 10.1n the present case, commission of suicide by deceased Bhagwati Bai has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant, otherwise also established by the eyidenceof Dr. K.K. Tamrakar (PW-6) & autopsy report Ex.P-12A which reveal that Bhagwati Bai hascommitted.suicide byhanging. 11.As regards complicity ofthe appellant in the crime in questiQn.originally prosecution was launched against father-in-law, mother-in-law & husband of deceased Bhagwati Bai, but after appreciatingthe evidence availableon record, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted 1(2002)5SCC371 2 (2001)98cc 618 3AIR2004SC2790 husband & father-in-lawof the deceased and convicted the appellant i.e. mother-in-law ofthe deceased under Sections 306 & 498A ofthe I.P.C> 12.Bhaiyalal Parihar (PW-1) - brother of the deceased has deposed in his evidence that his sister has committed suicide in the house of the appellant. He has further deposed that contents of Ex.P-4 haVe been written by his sister. Kishore Singh Parihar (PW-3) - another brother of the deceased has deposed ih his evidence that the appellant herein, father-in-law & sister-in-law ofthe deceased used to'commit torture upon the deceased. He has further deposedthat husband of the deceased & mother-in-law ofthe deceased i.e. theappellant used to taunt and torture the deceased. Shivkunwar Bai (PW-4) - .motherof the deceased has substantjally corroborated the evidence of Kishore Singh Parihar (PW-3). 13.During the course pf investigation, the investigating officer has seized a diarywritten by the deceased as Ex.P-4. Letters Exs.P-5, P-6 & P-7 show the frustrationof the deceased on account of ill-tresitment by the appellant and other co-accused persons. Ex.P-7 specifically reveals that the appellant herein was in the habit of taunting and condemning the deceased. Letters & evidence of the aforesaid witnesses reveal that behaviour of the appellant with the deceased was not normal, the appellantwas in habitof committing misbehaviourwith the deceasedand sheused to taunt the deceased. . 14.After appreciating the evidenceavailable on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the other accused persons convicted the appellant under Sections 306 & 498Aofthe I.P.C.. 15.Documentary and oral evidence adducedon behalf of the proseeution are distinguishable relating to the appellant herein. Specific allegation relating to continuous taunt and tortureof the appellant has been deposed by the witnesses and same thing finds place in the letters written by the deceased. Such behaviour bf the appellant definitely falls within the ambitof torture & cruelty committed by the appellant upon the deceased. 16.However, as regards abetment of suicide, the prosecution has not adduced any evidenee to show that on the date of commjssion of suidde, the appellant herein has acted in any manner which compelled the deceased to commit suicide. As per the evidence of the prosecution it was the regular behaviourof the appellant. The prosecution has noi ^' &.- s '""a v 1 '^ adduced any evidence to show that the appellant has intentionally or deliberately instigated or aidedor misbehaved with the deceasedpn the date of commission ofsuicide knowing that as a resultofsuch behaviour the deceased may commit suicide. In absence ofspecifjc and cogent evidence, it is difRcult to hold that the appellant has abetted,aided or instigated the commission of suicide of the deceased. However, the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient fordrawing. inference that the appellant has committed torture & cruelty upon the deceased punishable under Section 498Aofthe I.P.C.. 17.As held bythe Apex Court in the matters of Sanju & Hans Raj(supra), inorder to convict the appellant under Section306 ofthe I.P.C. the prosecution is required to prove factumofinstigation. But in the present case, the prosecution has hot proved the factum of instigation or abetment for commission of suicide. As held by the Apex Court in the matter ofRamesh Kumar (supra), in absence of specific instances of instigation or abetmenf, commission of cryelty may be sufficient for the offenGe punishable under Section 498A of the I.P.C., but would not be sufficient for conviction ofthe appellant underSection 306 ofthe I.P.C.. 18.1n thepresent case,the prosecution has not adduced any evidence of abetmentor instigation for commission ofsuicide. But the evidence adduced on behalfofthe prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has committed torture & cruelty punishable under Secfion498A of the I.P.C. While convicting the appellant underSection 306 of the I.P.C., the trial CQurt has not considered the aforesaid aspect i.e. absence of element of abetmentof suicide and thereby committed illegality. 19.0n closescrytiny Qfevidence, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of the I.P.C. are not sustainable under the law. However, convietion of the appellant under Section 498A of the I.P.C. is sustainable under the law. 20.Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Convlction & sentence ofthe appellant under Section 306 of the I.P.C. are hereby set aside and the appellant is acqujtted of the said charge. Conviction of the appellant under Section 498A of the l.P.C. is hereby maintained. As regards sentence under Section 498A of the I.P.C., the offence took place in the year 1989 and the appellant is facing trial since 1989, after lapse of21 --•:.>, ''•/0-'? ^' years again sending the appellant to jail under Section 498A of the I.P.C. e^- would not serveany purpose. Consequently, the appellant is sentenced,T~^c ^l^- Soma ^. to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 498A of the I.P.C. The appellant shall pay the fine amount within thirty days from today failing whichshe shallyndergo R.l. forsix months. _ „ . Sd/- ' T. P. Sharma Judge