i§\\~\i;&\;§\§\;\§§;w;w\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF M g§IYrA PRADESH VAT JAB$WR X rimin 1 mneal NO. C a of 19go / m , f kPPgJLTS : 1. Jag‘atram agar: 4S years .son’b (In jail) Accueii Copirar}: Rawai, . Bhagatravn aged 35 years, son of~ Goiram Rawat, -3. imkpbai aged 30 years, wife of‘ aragram. P“ ‘A'11 resiaaits of Masjidp’ara, miaramjaigarh, . S. and Tahsil maramjai‘garh District P , Raigarh (M. a) - vers ‘3 uS ’Ihe State of Madhya Pradesh through Station House Office, Police’ Station, maramj aigarti. WPmaL . UEDER SECTxONhW‘A v L2); pFW wrt‘m‘ng Q F CMMIN@3 PRO CETJI RE :r: . . “ X 7 V : s p / - 2 stated that the present appellants were hargssing her, howaver, she further Stated that her husband was treating her with cruelty, therefore. she bu’ht herseui. On completion o£ the investigation, the inlice filed the challan against the appellants and as they denied commission o£ tl’e cffence, they were put to trial. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicteci and sentenced the accuseé persons as referred to above. therefore. they have come to this Court ., 3 . Miss Singhai , learned counsel for the appellants. submits that conviction of the appellants under Section 4989A of I.P.C. is bad because 3ection 498—A in its logical interpretation canbe applied to the husband and relations of the husband and as the-present appellants are not the relations of the husbard; they could not be mnvicted. After taking me through tl'e statements of the witnesses, it is submitted that no any evidence has been brought on record to prove that the present appellants Were harassing the deceased or abetted suicide. She submits that from tre statem nts of P.W.8 Kishanlal,son of the deceased. P.W.9 Vishram and P.W.10 Devki Bai, it would appear tmt the appellants were not involved in any illegal ity or they never harassed the deceasedv 4 . learned counsel for the 3tate has opposed the argunents submitting that fmm the dying decla ration, Ex.P/5—B, it would'cle-arly appear that the appellants did harass the deceased and as a result of the said harassment ‘she had conunitted suicide. He submits that the conviction of the appellants and the sentences awarded to them do not call for any interfergggeg’a/ K_, $ » § 4 interpretation woul6 a ply to the husbanci or £he relatives of the hts band and not to other prsons. Undisputedly, the appellants are relations o£ the deceased woman(wife). Section 498-A certainly could not bee applied in a case like present. On this sha‘t ground’ the comicticn and sentences awarded to the appellants urder Section 498—A of I.P.C. are set-aside. .7 . Section 306 I.P.C. says that if any person commits suicide, whoever 'abets the commission of such suiciae, shall be punisheo with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable t’o fine. ’8. under a / Section 107 I.P.C. defines abetment. It reads as "107. Abetment- of a thing- A mrson abets vtre doing of a thing,who- First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other mrson or per-sore in any sonspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursiance 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. mcplanation-m 1— A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful mncealment of a material fact which he is bourd to disclOSe.voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cease or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Mplanation-z- Whoever,either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act,does anything in order to facilitate tL W’Dmmission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act ." A prson abets the doing of a thing if he instigates any person to do that thing or after engaging hggse’lfNwi / th // x -5- one or more person inyconspiracy for the doing of that mg act, intentianally aids by any act or illegal omission tl'e c’bing of the said thing. Unlees tl'E ingredients constitutingancioffence‘ under Sec. 107i IPC §re ~n°t :&V&i3:§1%esin an ordinary matter a person cannot be convicted under Section 109 I.P.C.. Section 109 provides that whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the .abetment, andho express provision is maée by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be ‘punishea with the / punishment provided fm the offence. For constituting an offence of abetment, the prosecution is obligea to prove that the accused instigated somebody to do something or engaged his ownself with one m or more person in $me conspiracy for doing something ille gal — or omitting to do something which he was required to do or if the accused intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission the doing of said thing. § 9. For securing a mnviction under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution would be obliged to prove that the accused persons either instigated the deceased to commit suicide or they engaged themselves in a 'mnspiracy or engaged themselves with one o'r more other person or persons in a conspiracy for, doing something or the accused persons intentionally aided by any act or illegal omission the doing of that thinga 10 . In the present matter, the le arned trh l c'ourt,‘ after going through the statemert s ‘of the witnesses, has recorded a pasitiVe finding in favour of the accused persons that in the statements of P.W.8 Kishan, P.W.9 Vishram and P.W.10 Devki Bair the prosecutiomfailed in ‘ A“ V, s K #77,, bringlany ewdence on recd aalns the accused persons‘ or gt 11% Though the finding has been rcorded in favour cf the ccsed persons but the learned court below dld not au care to see the said statements properly. F.W.8 Kishan t agr e ‘ io y > s a h n a t Lal, he son of the deceased, 1n paraph 2 of his statements, :Ln reply to the wxngxmmm suggestl' ’ glven by the Publlc Prosecutor stateé that he did not know tkat on the ate of the incldent the husband of a the deceased d beat the deceased, the deceased kerosene eil on herself a£ thereafter m burnt ' r herself. In paragraph 3 in rely to the leading p questns, the witness said that he did not know that t a demanded a. sum o is 56/-. ’fhe Witness however stated r that the father and mother Were generall engaged in '~ ome fight nd te motmr geerally ws unhaPPY. The trend of the leing questions put by the Public ad :, Proscutor would show that the prosecuion came out vdth ’ e t the case that on te date of the incident tre decease h had some fight with her husbarn, being unhappy and sorrowed on that account ke poumd keeene oil on - e ro herself and burnt Even on the leading questio even a single question was put nor a suggestion was i l .‘ g' given to the Witness that the present appellants also . harassed the deceased With cruelty. In paragraph 4 th ii g 7 e Witness had stated that the accused Were not coming tel X their house. the accused had no fight With his mower e rather stated that his fath a -5- 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ on hedate of the incident the husbnd of the deceased “ h e‘ ‘7 12. P.W.9 Vishram who admittedly was available on the spot had stated trat accused persons neverhad any fight with the deceased. He alsos tated that deceased Shakuntala fever infomed him that she haa some fight with the present appellants. In pagagraph 5. he stated that shakun Bai and her husband Abhayrfam after consuming liquor use. to fight with each other. P.W.1O Devki Bai did not speak even a single word against the accused persons. rather she stateti trat the accused were not coming to the house of the deceased 13'. From the statements of these three witnesses, it would simply appear that the accused persons were not comlng to the house of the deceaseo, trey haé no flght with the deceased, nobody saw them flghtlng With the deceased nor the deceased ever reported to anybody that the appellants fought w1th her. The ev1dence on K the other hand is that the deceased use! to fight or‘ quarrel with her husband, tke leading questions put by the prosecution would show that on the date of the incident the husband of the deceased demanded a sum of Rs.5o/-, on which the deceased and her husband had some tight ard ultimately tke deceased committed suicideo 14. True it is that in tre dying declaration the deceased had stated that the present appellants were harassing her. It is also trre that dying declarations, unless there are circumstances or reasons to disbelieve the same, are accepted to be correct. In a case Where the prosecution wants to Succeed on the strength of the dying declaration, it also has to bring on record the attending circumstances. In abseme of sly evidence to say, show or suggest that the present ‘ appel/lantsAL treated 1 g ‘ l . - 8 the deceased with'cruelty or did something to abet her t‘o contmitisuicide, it would not be‘ pogsible to hold that they in fact abetted her to commit suicide. In the matter of Mahendra Singh and another vs. State of M.P.,reported in 1996 CrJuR. (SC) 15, the Supreme Court while considering a matter where the accused mrsons Were convicted'under Section 306 IPc had to deal a matter like present. The dying declaration in the said case was as tinder : "My mother—inalaw and husband and sister-in—law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendfa wants to marry a second time. He has illiCit connections with my sister-rin-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning. The Suprene Court observed that in a case where such a dying decJa ration is available, the dying declaration, pervse, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under bection 305 IE because it prOVides for - abetment of suitide. Referring to Section 107, Their Lordships observed that unless tie ingredients of abetment are a/vailable on the record, it would not be possible to -hold that the accused mrsom in fact abetted the commission of offence. While acquitting the accused persons, the Supreme eourt observed that neitl'er of the ingredients of the abetment were attracted on the statements of the deceased. 15. In the present case, tl’e deceased simply said that V her maternal aunt {mother's sister) and maternal uncles (mother's brothers) harassed her, therefore, she committed suicide¢ Unfortunately, barring these words that they harassed ker she did anot say anything nor alything is‘ available on the record to show that the appellants did anything to abet tre commiss10n of sucide° We iV - 9 <§eclaration, is not always binding. A Court has to lock into the nature of the dying declaraticn, its reliability and has also to see that whether such dying oeclaration needs some corroboration or not. 16. Seotion 32 of T ‘1 Indian Evidence Act says that statements. written or verbal,of relevant facts made by a Vperson 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 expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the cases well mentioned in Section 3 When the statement J's made by a person as to the cause o£ 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 @rson's death comes into question. Such statements arerrelevant whether tke person who made them was or Was not, at tke time when the} ‘ were made. under. expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of'lthe proceeding in which the cause of his eath comes into question. 17. Section 32 of Indian EVidence Act does not say that a statement made by a person in relation to cause of his death would be mnclusive proof or would be deemed to be a gospel truth. It says that such statements would be relevant. Such relevant statemts are to be accepted if there are attending circumstances. In absence of the circumstances which could connect the accused persons with the alleged crime,so also in a case where no motives has been attributed against such persons but simple allegations ofihrarrassment have been % d