Case: Mangat Ram Vs. State Of Haryana

1. The appellant Mangat Ram, a member of SC community, married the deceased Seema, a member of the Aggarwal community on 13.7.1993 at Ambala. Few months after the marriage, on 15.9.1993, according to the prosecution, the appellant sprinkled kerosene oil on the body of the deceased and set her on fire, having failed to meet the dowry demand. On hearing the hue and cry, neighbours assembled and took her to the Civil Hospital, Gohana and, later, she was shifted to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, where she died on 17.9.1993. The appellant, along with his parents and sister, were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC.2. The prosecution, in order to bring home the offences, examined PWs 1 to 7 and also produced various documents. On the side of defence, DWs 1 to 5 were examined and the accused appellant got himself examined as DW6. After the evidence was closed, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), who denied all the incriminating statements made against him. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 498-A IPC was made out against the appellant, but not against the other three accused persons. The trial Court also found that no offence under Section 304-B IPC was made out against the accused persons, including the appellant. However, it was held that an offence under Section 306 IPC was made out against the appellant, though no charge was framed under that section. After holding the appellant guilty, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- , in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for six months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for two years.3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 592-SB of 1997, which when came up for hearing before the Division Bench of the High Court on 3.5.2007, the Court passed the followingMrs. Ritu Punj, DAG, HaryanaMrs. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae.HeardDismissed, reasons to follow.Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred SLP (Criminal) No. 7578 of 2007 which was later converted into Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2008. The criminal appeal came up for hearing before this Court on 25.1.2008 and this Court deprecated the practice of the High Court in disposing of the criminal appeals without recording reasons in support of its decision. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in State of Punjab and others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596 , State of Punjab and others v. Surinder Kumar and others (1992) 1 SCC 489  and Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 4 SCC 158 , this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the High Court to hear the appeal on merits.5. The High Court then considered the criminal appeal and dismissed the same on merits vide its judgment dated 27.5.2008 confirming the conviction and sentence awarded against the accused by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred

Court's reasoning:
. However, if that part of the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 could not be believed against the rest of the accused, then we fail to see how it could be put against the accused alone, especially when PWs 4 and 5 had stated that the demand for dowry was made by all the accused on 13.8.1993. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 has to be appreciated in the light of the fact that they were against the inter-caste marriage, since the appellant belonged to Scheduled Caste community and the deceased belonged to Aggarwal community, a forward community. Alleged dowry demand of Rs.10,000/- and the demand of scooter, stated to have been made by the accused, could not be established not only against the other three accused persons, but also against the appellant ashas come out in evidence that when the deceased sustained burn injuries, the accused was not atWe fail to see how the Court can come to the conclusion that having known the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy, he would not have married the deceased. If thereasoning is accepted, then nobody would or could marry a person having Epilepsy. Another perverse reasoning of the trial Court which, according to the trial Court, led to the act of suicide, is as...... She has been brought up by her grand maternal father Bidhi Chand and he contracted a love marriage with her. But in spite of that, he quenched his lust of sex by enjoying Seema and then left her in a rustic life of village. Seema, out of frustration and discontentment, wanted to get rid of that life. When her maternal grand father did not reach for her rescue, she being fully harassed, sprinkled kerosene oil on her body and took her life.Supplied]14. The underlined portion indicates that the deceased had committed suicide out of frustration and discontentment and due to the reason that her maternal grandfather did not reach for her rescue. Reference to few letters sent by the deceased to her maternal grand father in this respect is apposite. In her letter dated 18.8.1993 (Annexure P-17) to PW4, there is absolutely no indication of any harassment or dowry demand by the accused. The letter would only indicate that she was home-sick and wanted very much to see her grand father, the operative portion of the same reads as followsBut you should come it is very important work. If you will not come on 25th or 26th then I will give my life. Therefore both of you should come. Even if Somnath mama will say no for you to go to Baroda but both of you should come, it is important work. If you will not come then your daughter will give her life. What more should I write you are wise enough. If there is any mistake in the letter then forgive me. I sent a letter to Bandoi also. That day we reached Baroda at 3Both of us wish Namaste to all of you. Give love to Rahul, Sahul. I miss all of you a lot. Daddyji after getting my letter come to Baroda on 25th or 26th immediately, it is important work. If you will not come I will give my life therefore you and mamaji should come. I am closing my letter. I am writing again that Daddyji you should come. It is very important work. If you will not come on 25th or 26th then on 27th you will get a telephone call of my death. ….Reference may also be made to another letter dated 11.9.1997 sent by her to PW4. In that letter also, there was no complaint of any harassment or dowry demand. On the other hand, the letter would further reemphasize that she was home-sick and very much wanted to see her maternal grand father, the operative portion of the letter reads asDaddyji you may not come for a night but you should come to meet me for an hour or two. It is very important work. Daddyji you keep on replying to my letter I feel very happy. I miss Rahul, Sahul, Raju, Sonu, Shalu and Rachit, Sapna, Aarti and all of you. I keep on crying the whole day and whole night by remembering you. I want to meet all of you. Nanaji come to Baroda immediately after reading my letter on 17th or 18th date, it is very important work. If you love me then you should come. Daddy if you will not come even after reading my letter then I take your vow that I will give my life. Reply to the letter on getting it. From my side and from my mother inside and fromside we wish Namaste to all of you. Give love to children. Writer of letter your daughter.The picture that emerges from the conduct of the deceased was that she was very home-sick at her matrimonial home and was very much attached to PW4 and her friends and relatives at her home. The accused being a Police Constable had to serve at various places away from his village and, then necessarily he had to leave his wife at his home in the care and protection of his parents. Not taking the wife along with him, itself was, however, commented upon by the trial Court stating that the accused had left his wife, an educated girl belonging to a business community, in a village and in the house of a lower community people, whose way of life, whose way of talking, whose way of behaviour would not be at par with the family members of the deceased. On this reasoning, the trial Court concluded that the deceased was feeling perplexed, agitated and expected that the accused would take her at his place of posting, rather than leaving in a village in the company of rustic persons which, according to the Court, led to discontentment and unhappiness.17. We fail to understand how a judicially trained mind would come out with such a reasoning and, at least, we expected that the High Court would have set right that perverse reasoning, but we are surprised to note that the High Court adopted yet another strange reasoning, which reads asdeceased had contracted marriage with the appellant-accused on her own accord against the wish of her maternal grandfather then, deceased was not expected to commit suicide because she was to stay with the appellant-accused. On the other hand, appellant-accused being employee had not kept the deceased with him at the place of his posting. Deceased was staying with the parents of the appellant-accused. So, actions of the appellant-accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide.We fail to see how the failure of a married person to take his wife along with him to the place where he is working or posted, would amount to cruelty leading to abetment of committing suicide by the wife. Taking wife to place of posting depends upon several factors, like the convenience of both, availability of accommodation and so many factors. In the instant case, the accused had left the wife in the matrimonial home in the company of his parents and we fail to see how that action would amount to abetment to commithave gone through those letters and, in those letters, there is nothing to show that the deceased was upset by the behaviour of the accused. On the other hand, the letters only expose that the deceased was extremely home sick and wanted the company of her maternal grandfather. We are surprised to note that the High Court found fault with the accused for leaving the deceasedthe mercy of hisAgain, the High Court made another strange reasoning, which reads asafter marriage, two letters were written in the months of August and September, 1993. Appellant-accused being employee should have kept the deceased with him. No prudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted to do so. Actions of the appellant-accused amounts to cruelty compelling the deceased to commit suicide. Conviction under Section 306 IPC was rightly recorded by the trial Court. No question of interference. If husband is given a benefit of doubt on the allegation that no direct evidence, no circumstantial evidence, when the marriage was inter-caste, then what type of evidence deceased or complainant was to collect.Supplied]20. We find it difficult to comprehend the reasoning of the High Court thatprudent man is to commit suicide unless abetted to doA woman may attempt to commit suicide due to various reasons, such as, depression, financial difficulties, disappointment in love, tired of domestic worries, acute or chronic ailments and so on and need not be due to abetment. The reasoning of the High Court that no prudent man will commit suicide unless abetted to do so by someone else, is a perverse reasoning.21. We fail to see how the High Court can say that the accused being a police man should have kept his wife with him at his workplace. Further, the High Court then posed a wrong question to itself stating that if there is no direct evidence, no circumstantial evidence, then what type of evidence the deceased or complainant was to collect, when the marriage is inter-caste, a logic we fail to digest.We have already indicated that the trial Court has found that no offence under Section 304-B IPC has been made out against the accused, but it convicted the accused under Section 306 IPC, even though no charge had been framed on that section against the accused. The scope and ambit of Section 306 IPC has not been properly appreciated by the CourtsWe are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her to cruelty, the presumption as defined under Section 498-A IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The termCourt may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by herwould indicate that the presumption is discretionary. So far as the present case is concerned, we have already indicated that the prosecution has not succeeded in showing that there was a dowry demand, nor the reasoning adopted by the Courts below would be sufficient enough to draw a presumption so as to fall under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In this connection, we may refer to the judgment of this Court in Hans Raj v. State of Haryana (2004) 12 SCC 257 , wherein this Court has examined the scope of Section 113A of the Evidence Act and Sections 306, 107, 498-A etc. and held that, unlike Section 113B of the Evidence Act, a statutory presumption does not arise by operation of law merely on the proof of circumstances enumerated in Section 113A of the Evidence Act. This Court held that, under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution has to first establish that the woman concerned committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband has subject her to cruelty. Even though those facts are established, the Court is not bound to presume that suicide has been abetted by her husband. Section 113A, therefore, gives discretion to the Court to raise such a presumption having regard to all other circumstances of the case, which means that where the allegation is of cruelty, it can consider the nature of cruelty to which the woman was subjected, having regard to the meaning of the wordin Section 498-A IPC.27. We are of the view that the circumstances of the case pointed out by the prosecution are totally insufficient to hold that the accused had abetted his wife to commit suicide and the circumstances enumerated under Section 113A of the Evidence Act have also not been satisfied. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48 , this Court has examined the scope of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, wherein this Court has reiterated the legal position that the legislative mandate of Section 113A of the Evidence Act is that if a woman commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, as per the presumption defined in Section 498-A IPC, the Court may presume, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by the husband or such person. The Court held that, though a presumption could be drawn, the burden of proof of showing that such an offence has been committed by the accused under Section 498-A IPC is on the prosecution. The Court held that the burden is on the prosecution to establish the fact that the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the suicide. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show whether it was an accidental death or whether the deceased had committed suicide.28. We have every reason to believe that, in the instant case, the death was accidental, for the followingThough not proved in her dying declaration, it has come out in evidence that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years i.e. before 15.3.1993, the date of incident. This fact is fortified by the evidence of Dr. Kuldeep, who was examined as DW1. He deposed that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and was under his treatment from 23.12.1992 to 2.4.1993 at Kuldeep Hospital, Ambala City. His evidence was brushed aside by the trial Court on the ground that Dr. Kuldeep was not a Psychiatrist. It may be noted that Epilepsy is not a Psychiatrist problem. It is a disease of nerves system and a MD (Medicine) could treat the patient of Epilepsy. The reasoning given by the trial Court for brushing aside the evidence of DW1 cannot be sustained. Therefore, the possibility of an accidental death, since she was suffering from Epilepsy, cannot be ruled out. Evidently, she was in the kitchen and, might be, during cooking she might have suffered Epileptic symptoms and fell down on the gas stove and might have caught fire, resulting her ultimate death.- DW2, ASI Ram Mohan, the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed that he had recorded the statements of the deceased wherein she had stated that she was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years before the incident and that on 15.9.1993 while she was preparing meals on stove, she had an attack of fits and fell on the stove and caught fire. She had also deposed at that time that her husband was away at duty at Madhuban, Karnal. In our view, the evidence of DW2 has to be appreciated in the light of overall facts and circumstances of the