CR.A/130/1994 1/16 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 130 of 1994 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= KANUBHAI LAXMANBHAI DAMOR & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MR VYAS for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Appellant(s) : 3, MS HANSA PUNANI, APP for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 03/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT Appellants were original accused Nos.1 to 3. Appellant No.3 having died during pendency of the appeal, appeal qua the said appellant has abated. CR.A/130/1994 2/16 JUDGMENT 2. Appellant No.1, original accused No.1 is the husband of deceased Ramiben. Appellant No.2 – accused No.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased girl. As per charge Ex.4, it was alleged against the accused that accused No.1 had extra marital illicit relation with one Somiben. Since his wife objected to the said relation, accused No.1 used to ill-treat her. Other members of the family including accused No.2 used to taunt her about her household work. On account of this cruelty, Ramiben committed suicide by consuming poison on 21.2.92. It was therefore alleged that all the accused had committed offence punishable under section 498-A and section 306 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha by the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd December 1993 convicted the appellants for offence under section 498-A and section 306 read with section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to S.I. for 12 months for offfence under section 498-A and for 30 months for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Manaji Bhagaji, father of the deceased girl, PW-1 was examined at Ex.12. In his deposition, he stated that his daughter Ramiben had got married to accused No.1 about 10 to 11 years before the incident. Rami's husband used to beat her up. Her husband had relation outside marriage, because of CR.A/130/1994 3/16 JUDGMENT which Ramiben used to come to his house. Her husband was not treating her well. Because of the said habits of his, husband and wife used to quarrel and accused No.1 used to beat his wife up. Ramiben, therefore, used to come to the house of the witness. He would persuade her and sent her back to her matrimonial home. Four days before her death, Ramiben had come to his house. Before that she had come about a year back complaining that accused No.1 used to beat her up. Accused No.1 and others had come to pick up Ramiben. One Pratap Dhira had given in writing assuring that accused No.1 will not beat up Ramiben and her in-laws also will not ill-treat her. The writing was produced at Ex.13. He further stated that accused No.1 had illicit relation with one lady in village. Four days before the incident, Ramiben had come to his house and told him that her husband keeps illicit relations with another lady and when she objects to this, he beats her up. Other members of the family also taunt her. The witness and his two brothers had thereafter taken Ramiben to her husband's house on the next day. They had pleaded to her in-laws not to harass Ramiben. On 21.2.92, he received a message that Ramiben has consumed poison. When they reached Batiwada village, they found Rami's dead body laid on a cot. She had injuries on her eyes, elbow, back and knees. In cross-examination, the witness denied the suggestion that Ramiben was suffering from epileptic fit or that she had ulcers due to which she was CR.A/130/1994 4/16 JUDGMENT bleeding. He also denied that Ramiben had been taken to witch doctor for her ailments. Though he agreed that in his complaint he had not disclosed about Rami's visit to his house a year before the incident or that accused used to taunt her, he however, had so stated in his statement before the police. 5. PW-2, Navaji Bhagaji, uncle of deceased Rami was examined at Ex.15. He also stated in his deposition that Rami used to come to their house because of the ill-treatment an beating by her husband. He further stated that four days before the incident, Rami had come to her father's house and complained that her husband has illicit relation with one Somiben which Ramiben does not approve of. When Ramiben had admonished her husband about this, her husband used to beat her up. He and his other brothers had taken Ramiben to her husband's house the next day to leave her there. This witness also denied the suggestion that Ramiben was being taken to witch doctor. 6. PW-3, Valaji Manaji, brother of Ramiben was examined at Ex.16. He also gave similar version of the background leading to Rami's death. He stated that on 17.2.92, Ramiben had last come to his house at which time, Ramiben had complained to him that her husband has illicit relation with another lady and upon being confronted, her husband beats her up. CR.A/130/1994 5/16 JUDGMENT In cross-examination,however, he admitted that in his police statement, he had not given the name of Somiben. He also denied the suggestion that his sister suffered from ulcers or that she was a patient of epileptic fit. 7. Dr.Rameshchandra Kalidas, PW-6, Ex.21 had carried out the post-mortem of the body of deceased Ramiben. On the basis of FSL report, he could opine that the death occurred due to poisoning. The report had detected presence of poisonous substance called “monocrotophose non-theo organo phosphorous”. He had given certificate accordingly which was produced at ex.26. Significantly, in his deposition, he stated that he had found following three external injuries on the body of Ramiben :- i) 2 cm long lacerated wound on left cheek. ii)One similar wound of 1 cm on the left knee where the blood had clotted. iii)One similar wound of 2 x 1 cm on right elbow where also blood had clotted. 8. PW-7, Mangalji Kanaji, Ex.31 was a panch witness for the panchnama of the scene of the incident. From the panchnama and deposition, it can be seen that from the place of the incident, one tin containing pesticides was found from the spot. In his cross-examination, this witness had, however, tried to help the defence by agreeing to the CR.A/130/1994 6/16 JUDGMENT suggestions that Ramiben used to faint frequently and she was therefore being taken to witch doctor and that she was tired of her illness. The witness was, therefore, declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined by the APP. 9. PW-9, Usmanmiya, Ex.35 was the PSO of Bhiloda police station who had taken down the complaint. 10. PW-10, Nathusinh, Ex.38 was the IO who had carried out the investigation. 11. This in essence is the gist of the evidence led by the prosecution on record. 12. From the available evidence on record, it can be seen straightway that in so far as appellant No.2, original accused No.2 is concerned, there was no evidence on record to prove the charges under section 306 or even under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Whatever allegations and averments of the witnesses with respect to this accused, the same were rather general in nature and no specific instance of any harassment or cruelty was brought on record. More importantly, all the prosecution witnesses only in general and somewhat vague terms stated that because of slow work of Ramiben, accused No.2 and other family members used to taunt her. To my mind, such general allegations without any material on record would not be sufficient to bring home charge CR.A/130/1994 7/16 JUDGMENT under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code leaving alone one under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, I find that so far as father-in-law of the deceased Ramiben, i.e. present appellant No.2 is concerned, there was no evidence to hold him guilty for the said offence. 13. With respect to appellant No.1, original accused No.1, husband of Ramiben, I however, find that situation is somewhat different. 14. The incident happened only a few days thereafter. In so far as death of Ramiben due to consumption of poison is concerned, there is absolutely no doubt. Deposition of Dr.Rameshchandra, PW-6, Ex.21, clearly establishes this fact. FSL report detected presence of pesticides in Rami's stomach. From the scene of incident, the police also seized a tin containing pesticides. This aspect has not been seriously doubted by the defence. 15. Question is did appellant No.1 treat Ramiben with cruelty so as to bring home the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and further was the cruelty such that he could also be held guilty for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 16. Father of Ramiben, Manaji, PW-1, Ex.12, had clearly stated that Ramiben used to come to his house because of ill-treatment by her husband. Her husband CR.A/130/1994 8/16 JUDGMENT had illicit extra-marital relation with another lady. Ramiben used to object to such relations, upon which her husband used to beat her up. Ramiben had come to his house about a year before the incident and stayed there for some time. She was sent back only after one Pratap Dhira assured her safety being given in writing which was produced at Ex.13. This witness, as already noted, had stated that four days before the incident, Ramiben had come to his house and made a similar complaint. He along with his two brothers had accompanied Ramiben and left her house the next day. I further find that other witnesses have also given similar account in their depositions. This has been consistently stated by Navaji, PW-2, Ex.15, uncle of Ramiben, and PW-2, Valaji, Ex.16, Rami's brother. All these witnesses in addition to describing Rami's visit to her father's house about a year before the incident, specifically stated that Rami had visited her father's house only 4 days before the incident and complained about the ill- treatment by her husband on account of her objecting to his extra marital relations. No major contradictions have been extracted in the cross- examination of these witnesses. 17. Additionally, I also find that PW-1, Manaji, had stated that on the body of Ramiben, he could see injury marks. Dr.Rameshchandra, PW-6 also in his report had noted external injuries described herein- CR.A/130/1994 9/16 JUDGMENT above. To my mind, therefore, there was sufficient evidence to hold that appellant No.1 used to treat his wife with cruelty as required under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 18. For the purpose of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, cruelty means - “(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” It is true that courts have interpreted such requirement as to mean such cruelty as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to life or limb or health and not any act of discord which can be described as normal wear and tear of married life. However, in the present case I find that the cruelty meted out by appellant No.1 on his wife was of serious nature which would drive the woman to despair and commit suicide or to cause CR.A/130/1994 10/16 JUDGMENT grave injury as would endanger her life. His conviction under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is therefore required to be upheld. 19. Learned advocate for the appellants, however, submitted that the statements made by the deceased to her family members regarding alleged harassment and cruelty were in the nature of hearsay evidence. He relied on the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. L.B.Lad, 2006 (1) G.L.H. 718. It is true that ordinarily, such statements made by the deceased with respect to general treatment being meted out to her by her husband or other family members would fall within the category of hearsay evidence and not admissible. However, section 32 of the Evidence Act provides for cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found is relevant. Relevant portion of section 32 reads as under: “32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc. is relevant. Statements, written or verbal,or relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expenses which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:- CR.A/130/1994 11/16 JUDGMENT (1)when it relates to cause of death - When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.” 20. In the case of Rattan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1997 SC 768, it was observed as under: “Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act renders a statement relevant which was made by a person who is dead in cases in which cause of his death comes into question, but its admissibility depends upon one of the two conditions : Either such statement should relate to the cause of his death or it should relate to any of the circumstances of transaction which resulted in his death. The collocation of the words in Section 32 (1) "circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death" is apparently of wider amplitude than saying "circumstances which caused his death". There need not necessarily be a direct nexus between "circumstances" and CR.A/130/1994 12/16 JUDGMENT "death". It is enough if the words spoken by the deceased have reference to any circumstance which has connection with any of the transactions which ended up in the death of the deceased. Such statement would also fall within the purview of Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act. In other words, it is not necessary that such circumstance should be proximate, for, even distant circumstances can also become admissible under the sub-section, provided it has nexus with the transaction which resulted in the death. 21. In the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2324, the Apex Court observed as under: “Section 32 of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule of exclusion to the hearsay evidence and the statements of a person, written or verbal, of relevant facts, after his death are admissible in evidence if they refer to the cause of his death or to any circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death. To attract the provisions of Section 32, for the purposes of admissibility of the statement of a deceased the prosecution is required to prove that the statement was made by a person who is dead or who cannot be found or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or CR.A/130/1994 13/16 JUDGMENT expense or he is incapable of giving evidence and that such statement had been made under any of the circumstances specified in sub-sections (1) to (8) of Section 32 of the Act. Section 32 does not require that the statement sought to be admitted in evidence should have been made in imminent expectation of death. The words "as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death" appearing in Section 32 must have some proximate relations to the actual occurrence. In other words the statement of the deceased relating to the cause of death or the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death must be sufficiently or closely connected with the actual transaction. To make such statement as substantive evidence, the person or the agency relying upon it is under a legal obligation to prove the making of such statement as a fact. If it is in writing, the scribe must be produced in the Court and if it is verbal, it should be proved by examining the person who heard the deceased making the statement.” It can thus be seen that to a limited extent as provided under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Evidence Act, statement made by a person as a cause of his death or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death in cases in which the cause of his death comes into question is relevant. CR.A/130/1994 14/16 JUDGMENT 22. In the present case,the deceased girl had visited her father's house only 4 days before the incident. She had narrated the kind of treatment she received from her husband. She also stated the reason for such treatment. Only 4 days thereafter, her death occurred due to suicide. The statement which she made to her father and other family members thus had reference to the cause of her death and to the circumstances which ultimately resulted in her death. The circumstances she narrated thus had some proximate relations to the actual occurrence shortly thereafter. The circumstances, under which she visited her father's house, namely, that of ill- treatment by her husband had sufficient and close connection with the actual occurrence of her death. Her statement would, therefore, be admissible in evidence under section 32(1) of the Evidence Act. Narration by her to her father and other family members was shortly before her untimely death and had direct relation to her committing suicide shortly thereafter. It is not as if she had made some general complaints of being unhappy at her husband's house or that such complaints were made long before the incident had occurred so that no proximity between two can be traced. 23. With respect to charge under section 306 of the IPC for abatement of suicide, however, I find that the same requires proof of much greater persistent and consistent cruelty which would lead CR.A/130/1994 15/16 JUDGMENT the person to despair and virtually leave no choice but to end her life. In the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, 2005 AIR SCW 3569, the Apex Court has held that mere harassment or cruelty by husband or his relative would not constitute an offence of abetting commission of suicide. It is held that basic difference between two sections i.e. Section 306 an section 498-A is that of intention. Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended. 24. In the present case, I do not find sufficient evidence to hold that appellant No.1 abetted commission of suicide of his wife under section 306 read with section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction and sentence under the said section is therefore required to be set aside. 25. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in following terms: 1. Conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 for offence under section 498-A is upheld. 2. Conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 under section 306 of the IPC is, however, set aside. 3. His bail bond is cancelled. He shall, however, have time upto 31st May 2008 to surrender. 4. Appellant No.2 is acquitted of all charges CR.A/130/1994 16/16 JUDGMENT and his conviction and sentence is set aside. His bail bond is cancelled. 5. Appellant No.3 having died during the pendency of appeal, appeal qua the said appellant has abated. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)