\" <. l'- '• CFOOOOOM '7' IN 'HIS HIGH COUR'r G.F JUDIC&T&SE AT J&B&LPUR ( M.P.) CRIMINAL &PPE&L No. ^Lf^ ^ /20QQ APPELL&NTS T-IN JAII,! •\^"^ ..^' ^?^ ^,...^;>^ „ ^js"">'/"' r ^y ./••"" ./•" w RESPQHBSNT 1. SET B&H S/0. BHOLEKAH P&fEL AGED ABOOT 55 XSAfiS OGGUPATIQN AGRieOLTCTRIST R/0. eHQTEMUDPASA E.S. KH&R&SI& DISTT. RAZGARH 2. SONKUNWAR W/0. SETR&M AGED ABOUI 54 TEEARS aCC. AGRieOLTORIST S/Q. CHOTEM0DPAR& B.S. KH&RASI& DISTT. R&.IQ&8H. VBRSUS STA'EE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROOGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER EOEiICE SSa.TIOH ^KH&RASIA - DISTT. RAIG&RH. ^ B K 'v^ .("•MAT.T.EHGTta'"' iw nnnc-o ms iiaMnauunauu: \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR (Hon. hflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 2485 of 2000. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Set Ram and another. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh). Shri S.N. Nande counsel for the appellants. Shri Ajeet Singh PL for the respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEALUNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (07.01.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.9.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 219/1998 convicting the accused/appellants for the offences punishable under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.5.1998 merg intimation (Ex. P-6) was given and based on that FIR (Ex. P-8) was registered against the accused/appellants. It is alleged that on 26.5.1998 deceased Sheela committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and setting herself on fire. It is alleged that marriage of the deceased with one Puniram was performed six years prior to the date of incident and thereafter she was subjected to cruelty by the appellants. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied \ the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellants for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, the offence under Section 306 IPC is not made out against the appellants. He submits that the appellants have been convicted on the basis of evidence of Amrita Bai (PW-6), Lachhan Bai (PW-7) and Deen Bandhu (PW-10) whereas these witnesses have not stated anything in their evidence on the basis ofwhich the appellants can be convicted under Section 306 IPC. He submits that unfortunately the deceased was not having any issue and on account ofwhich she always remained tenseand depressed. According to him, perhaps on account of tension and depression she might have committed suicide. He submits that Puniram (PW-9) has not deposed anything in his evidence against the accused/appellants. On the contrary, this witness has categorically stated in hisevidence that the relation between the appellants and the deceased were very cordial. 7. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the appellants have rightly been convicted under Section 306/34 IPC as the deceased was continuously subjected by them to cruelty and when the same became unbearable to her, she had no other choice but to say goodbye to her life by setting herself afire. 8. Amrita Bai (PW-6) aged about 12 years who happened to be the niece ofthe deceased has stated in her examination in chiefthat the deceased and her husband were residing in a separate room \ WSSa. t" c^ -s- whereas the appellants were residing in a different room. She has further stated that brother in law and sister in law of the deceased were also residing in separate rooms and they were not having good terms with the deceased. This witness has stated that on the date of incident she was sitting with the deceased but after some time she asked her to go and play and when she returned after playing she saw that the deceased was burnt and was taken to the courtyard. From the statement of this witness it appears that the trial Court had put certain leading questions to her which she answered mechanically. One of the questions put to her by the Court was 'deceased was abused by her mother in law saying go and die' and the answer to the same as given by her was in the affirmative. Likewise, few other questions were put to her by the Court which were also answered in a mechanical manner. However, in the cross examination, this witness has admitted that as the deceased was not having any issue, she always remained sad. She has stated that except the date on which the incident had taken place, she never saw any dispute between the deceased and the appellants. Lachhan Bai (PW-7) - the mother of the deceased has though deposed that the accused/appellants used to torture her daughter (the deceased) but she cannot say as to why she died. She has further stated that as the deceased was not having any issue, she always used to be in depression. She has stated that no complaint whatsoever was made earlier in respect of any misbehaviour by the accused/appellants towards the deceased. Puniram (PW-9) - the husband of the deceased has categorically stated that the deceased had delivered a female child but unfortunately she had died and since then she used to be depressed. According to this witness, the deceased was treated by various doctors and that the relations between the appellants and the deceased were cordial. Deen Bandhu (PW-10) - the brother of the deceased has though made certain allegations against the appellants, he has admitted that the deceased had never informed him about any dispute between her and the appellants. He has stated that the deceased had not informed him as to when there was a dispute between her and the appellants. r -6/- 10. Thus in the light of the aforesaid discussion, the important question to be answered by this Court is whether the allegations made against the appellants can make out a case under Section 306 IPC. Answer to the same would of course be in negative for the reason that the ingredients of abetment defined under Section 107 IPC are completely missing in this case. To have a ready reference, the said provision is reproduced as under: Section 107. A person abets the doing ofa thing, who - F/'rsfc - Instigates anyperson 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 places 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. Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful 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 thing. Explanation 2.- Whoever, either prior to orat the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof.is said to aid the doing of that act." 11. While convicting a person for an offence under Section 306 IPC it has to be seen that instigation to do a particular thing must be there. 'lnstigation' literally means provocation, incitement, urge or persuasion to do any thing. In this case none of the witnesses has made even a whisper that the deceased was abetted in any manner by the appellants to commit suicide. Most of the witnesses including the husband of the deceased have stated that as the deceased was not having any issue, she always used to be in depression. Thus it can be presumed that the deceased might have taken this extreme step at the cost of her life having been actuated by depression after the death of her first child. The entire evidence brought on record goes to show that the deceased was not abetted by any of the accused/appellants to end her life by committing suicide rather it is the state of depression which might have led her to do so. ';:^? ;\ ^ 12. The aforesaid discussion if weighed with the evidence on record, does not give any ground to maintain the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants as shown above. Impugned judgment is not in consonance with the material collected by the prosecution and therefore, it has to be dislodged. 13. Appeal, as a result, is allowed and the judgment impugned is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. They be let loose if not required in any other case. ^- ^^ y^^ 1