Reserved Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 1530 of 2001 Old. Criminal Appeal No. 2090 of 1999 Dated of Decision: 21 .07.2010 Amar Singh …Appellant Versus State of U. P. (Now Uttarakhand) …Respondent Present: Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.G. Negi, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 02.08.1999 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 1996 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short I.P.C.) and sentencing him to undergo five years imprisonment and under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. to undergo three years imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that Rameshwari Devi was married with Prem Singh, son of accused Amar Singh about three years prior to the present occurrence. Prem Singh was in service and residing at Delhi whereas Rameshwari was residing with her father-in-law and mother-in- law in village Ratuda On 18th June 1995 Smt. Pavitra Devi (PW- 1) mother of Rameshwari submitted a written complaint Ex. Ka- 1 before the S.D.M. Rudraprayag alleging that Rameshwari Devi was ill treated by her in-laws. About one year prior to the occurrence i.e. in the yaer 1994 a necklace (Gulband), which was gifted by in-laws of Rameshwari was lost. Her father-in-law 2 and sister-in-law gave beatings to Rameshwari. Her in-laws told that her father should get a new necklace of the same design made and give it to them. On 19th June 1995 at about 2/3 p.m. some person from the village informed Govind Singh that his daughter was missing from her in-laws house for the last two- three days. Complainant Pavitra Devi went to in-laws house of her daughter. On an inquiry it was disclosed that Rameshwari had gone to collect grass but had not returned and her slippers, Daranti and Kandi were found lying at the bank of river. However, none from her in-laws house disclosed as to since when Rameshwari was missing. The complainant suspected that her in-laws have committed the murder of her daughter. Govind Singh (PW-2), father of deceased, who was working as driver at Meerut also submitted a written complaint Ex. Ka-2 before the S.D.M. on 24th June 1995 stating almost the similar facts as mentioned in Ex Ka-1. The S.D.M., therefore, directed that the matter be investigated by the police. On the basis of the complaint, Chick F.I.R. Ex. Ka-6 was recorded on 25th June 1995 at 11:00 a.m. The dead body of Rameshwari Devi could not be recovered even upto the date of filing the charge sheet. The investigation was entrusted to Patwari, Shailendra who took into possession Kandi, Daranti and Slippers belonging to Rameshwari which were found by Shishupal during the search and were taken in possession vide memo Ex. Ka-3 after making them into in a sealed parcel. Since Shailendra died in an accident, as such, the investigation was handed over to Naib Tehsildar Dwarika Prasad Bhatt (PW-5), who inspected the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-5 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, the challan was presented against accused Amar Singh under Section 498-A, 3 306 and 304-B of the I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined Pavitra Devi (PW-1) and Govind Singh (PW-2), mother and father of Rameshwari (deceased). Smt. Masanti Devi (PW-3), Raghunath Singh (PW-4) resident of village Ratuda as formal witness and proved the recovery of Kandi, Daranti and Slippers of Rameshwari. Dwarika Prasad Bhatt (PW-5), the Investigating Officer and Heera Singh (PW-6) submitted the charge sheet and also partly investigated the matter and submitted the challan. When examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded false implication and stated that he never ill treated Rameshwari Devi and had only advised her to keep her ornaments in safe custody. In defence, no evidence except letter Ex. Kha-1 alleged to have been written by Rameshwari, was produced. The trial court, after taking into consideration the facts and entire evidence available on record, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C., however convicted him under Section 306 & 498-A of the I.P.C. I have heard Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.S. Negi, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nandan Arya, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence to constitute the ingredients of Section 107 of the I.P.C. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused appellant had abetted 4 Rameshwari Devi to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that two independent witnesses, namely, Masanti Devi (PW-3) and Raghunath Singh (PW-4) have categorically stated that they never heard that there was any dispute between Rameshwari and accused appellant and the appellant never mal-treated his daughter-in-law Rameshwari, thus, the allegations levelled by the mother and father of Rameshwari with regard to mal-treatment are totally false. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that from letter Ex. Kha-1, which is not disputed even by the father of Rameshwari having been written to her husband on 2nd February 1995, depicts that there was no harassment or mal- treatment metted out to her. She has mentioned in the letter that her father-in-law had also joined his duties. Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that even from the letters Ex-1 to Ex-3 addressed to Govind Singh do not prove that Rameshwari was being harassed with regard to any demand or there was any such act which could constitute cruelty to infer directly or indirectly that Rameshwari was coerced or forced to commit suicide. It only depicted that necklace of Rameshwari which was gifted by her in-laws was lost when she had gone to her maternal home. The accused Amar Singh was therefore insisting that necklace of the same design be got made by her father. On this account Rameshwari was considering herself responsible for the loss of the necklace and some restrictions had also been imposed upon Rameshwari to visit her parents house and only on this account Rameshwari was not pleased with her father-in-law. However, nothing is depicted from the tenor of the letters that there any physical or mental cruelty was being caused by accused appellant to Rameshwari. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there is no evidence on record that appellant Amar Singh 5 had instigated or created such circumstances that Rameshwari was left with no other option except to commit suicide. He further pointed out that even the dead body of Rameshwari has not been recovered, therefore, it is not definite as to whether Rameshwari had committed suicide and whether her death is homicidal or accidental. There is no evidence that there was any immediate cause or incident prior to the date of missing of Rameshwari which could show that accused or anyone else had abetted, provoked, incited or encouraged Rameshwari to commit suicide. The mere allegation of insistence that Rameshwari’s father should get the necklace of similar design which was lost in the year 1994 does not attract the ingredients of abetement in view of the provisions of Section 107 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that there is no evidence that any relative of the husband had subjected Rameshwari to cruelty which is of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide. There is also no evidence that Rameshwari was harassed with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security or demand of dowry. On the other hand the learned A.G.A. has supported the judgment of the court below and submitted that from the statements of Pavitra Devi (PW-1) and Govind Singh (PW-2), it is well proved that Rameshwari Devi was coerced to get the similar design of necklace made from her father, which was lost by her and on this account she was given beatings by her father- in-law and other family members. Section 306 of the I.P.C. deals with abetement of suicide and the said provision reproduced as under: - 306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, 6 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The ingredients of abetment are defined in Section 107 of the I.P.C. which reads as under:- 107. Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing, who- First.- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.- Engages with one or more other person or person in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place 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. A bare reading of the above provision shows that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or an intentionally aiding that person in doing a thing for abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of the I.P.C. A definte active role, which can be described as instigating, aiding the doing of a thing is required. However, in present case, there is no direct or indirect evidence adduced by the prosecution that the accused-appellant had played any active role to abet Rameshwari to take an extreme step of committing suicide, thus the facts in the present case do not bring within the premise of Clause secondly and thirdly of Section 107 of the I.P.C. The Court has to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the victim had been induced to end her life by committing suicide. From perusal of the factual scenario in the 7 present case, it is clear that except the allegation of getting the necklace of the similar design made by father-in-law of Rameshwari which was lost due to her negligence, there is no other evidence to prove that appellant Amar Singh had in any way provoked, incited, aided or encouraged Rameshwari to commit suicide. The evidence in the present case is that Rameshwari left her matrimonial home in the morning for collecting grass along with other ladies but she did not return to the matrimonial home in the evening. She was seen by Masanti Devi (PW-3) in the morning sitting under a tree along with Kandi, Daranti but Masanti Devi also does not say that Rameshwari Devi was in such a mood or was having any inclination at that time to commit suicide. She had informed Masanti Devi that she was waiting for her friends to come. There is also no evidence that Rameshwari Devi had committed suicide by jumping in the river except the fact that her slippers, Kandi and Daranti were found near the bank of river. Even the letters Ex.-1 to Ex-3 do not show that Rameshwari Devi was in such a state of mind that she would commit suicide on account of loss of necklace or she was under so much pressure on account of her father-in-law asking her father to get the similar design of necklace made and under that pressure she was forced to commit suicide. The letter Ex.-1 dated 5th April 1994 shows that the necklace might have been lost prior to that day, however, the present incident has taken place in the month of June 1995 i.e. almost after more than one year and therefore, the incident of loss of necklace has no relevance with regard to the fact that Rameshwari is found missing from the matrimonial home or she might have committed suicide. With regard to the charge under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. there is not an iota of evidence that accused appellant had made a demand of dowry. The accused-appellant had only asked for the similar necklace to be made by the father of 8 Rameshwari, which certainly did not make out any offence under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. in any manner. In view of the above facts and evidence available on record, I am of the view that the ingredients of Sections 306 and 498-A of the I.P.C. have not been established; therefore, conviction recorded by the trial court cannot be maintained. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 02.08.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli is set aside. The accused appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. The registry is directed to send back lower court record. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) VKG 21.07.2010