IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 591 of 2002. Date of Decision: 19.8.2011. _______________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. ….Appellant. Versus. 1.Karan Singh son of Sh.Subhash Chand, caste Rajput, resident of Darang, P.S.Jawalamukhi, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. 2. Nirmla Devi wife of late Subhash Chand, caste Rajput, resident of Darang, P.S. Jawalamukhi, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant :Mr.R.K.Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents. : Mr.N.S.Chandel, Advocate. _________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The State challenges the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharmshala, acquitting both the respondents for offences under Sections 306/498-A I.P.C. 2. The brief facts, necessary for consideration in this appeal, are that Usha Devi committed suicide on 28.6.2000 by hanging herself. The first respondent herein is the husband Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes. 2 of deceased and the second respondent is mother-in-law. On 28.6.2000, Dy.S.P. Sanjeev Gandhi and S.I.Mohammad Arshad along with one lady constable and one male constable who were on patrolling duty at Darang, when they received information that one lady/woman had committed suicide in a nearby locality. Dy. S.P. Sanjeev Gandhi rushed to the house of the accused-respondents and found foul smell emanating from the house. Photographs of the body were taken and the statement of Pawan Kumar (PW1) brother of the deceased was recorded. He stated that he was resident of village Behar and studying in 10+1. He had two sisters. Deceased Usha Devi was married on 7.3.2000 to the first respondent. He says that he had gone to bring his sister to their house but the respondents declined permission. This happened on three occasions. Seven days before the deceased committed suicide, he had gone to call her but both respondents refused to allow her to accompany him. He says that the respondents had told him that if anyone dies in Chanaur, they will not go there and if somebody dies in Darang, this witness or anybody else should also not come there. He says that a threat was held out to the deceased by the respondents that in case she went to Chanaur, she would be killed and that she was also harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. 3. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Pawan Kumar reiterated the facts he stated in his statement recorded by the police. PW6 Prito Devi, mother of the deceased says that his daughter was 3 being harassed for dowry. She had informed about this fact telephonically from the rest house on the sly as she was not in a position to state facts freely and fairly from any other place(s). She was never sent alone to attend the telephone and was always accompanied by her husband or mother-in- law. When she was stopped from visiting her, she disclosed these facts to PW2 Amar Singh, who was the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. She had visited the house of the Pradhan 2/3 days before the death of Usha Devi. 4. PW5 Sushma Devi states that she had visited the deceased with her husband. On the first occasion, she did not find anything unusual but on the second occasion, she found that Usha Devi was, in fact, sad and morose. On her questioning, she was informed by the deceased that she was being harassed for bringing some dowry items. She did not disclose as to what was being demanded but stated that some ‘big’ items were demanded. On the evidence of this witness, the learned court holds that there is no evidence on record to show that any demand has been made before or during the time of solemnization of marriage and that the statement which has been made by the witnesses, was general in nature but there is nothing specific as to how and what kind of demand was made. In these circumstances, there was nothing on the record to establish that actual demand for dowry had been made from the deceased. We concur with the findings of the learned trial Court for the reason that we do not find any specific demand having been made by the 4 accused for any dowry articles etc. The generality of the demands cannot be treated as constituting cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. Merely stating that there was some kind of demand of dowry, is itself insufficient to hold that such a demand was, in fact, made. 5. On the question of abetment, we do not find any evidence on the record which points out to the respondents instigating the deceased to end her life. We concur with the findings of the learned court below that abetment as defined under Section 107 I.P.C has not been proved on the record and that the decision relied upon in Sarwan Kumar Vs. State of H.P., 2001 (1) Shim.L.C. 327 lays down the correct law. 6. The learned trial court also relies upon the decision in Padambai Vs. State of M.P., 1987 Cri.L.J. 1573 laying down that stray domestic quarrel can hardly be treated as instigation to commit suicide. We need not re-appreciate the evidence in detail but we find that the evidence of three witnesses noticed by us above on which the prosecution relies, does not constitute acts which can be construed as causing instigation to commit suicide. 7. Adverting to Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, we find that the provisions cannot be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The presumption engrafted in this provision is circumscribed by the other circumstances of the case. The nature of presumption is 5 discretionary and the mere fact that a woman commits suicide would not per se lead conclusion that death, in fact, is caused by abetment by the husband or any other person. {See: Hans Raj Vs. State of Haryana, (2004) 12 SCC 257.} The expression instigation and other circumstances of the case have received judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, holding: 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct 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. 21. In State of West Bangal v. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr., [ 1994] 1 SCC 73, this Court has cautioned that 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 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 6 charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.” (P.629.) 8. As noticed by us, we find no such evidence on the record and in these circumstances; the presumption cannot be raised only on the ground that the deceased has committed suicide. 9. We concur with the judgment of the learned court below and find no perversity in the appreciation of evidence or the conclusion arrived at. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. (R.B.Misra), Judge. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 19, 2011(R) Mained