Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 709
2001(5) Supreme 677
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
Government of NCT Delhi -Appellant
versus
Nagesh Tyagi -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4325 of 2000
Decided on 17-4-2001
IMPORTANT POINT
Quashing the charge under Section 498-A and 306 IPC is not sustainable on misreading of suicide note, sifting of evidence at initial stage was not permitted by law.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 498A and 306-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 113A-Suicide by married woman within 7 years of marriage-Suicide note pointing to beatings of deceased by husband as a motive for suicide-Charges framed-Quashed by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-Whether correct? (No)-Appeal allowed-Case remanded to trial Court to proceed with it.
Held : We are at the question of examining whether a pre-trial discharge is warranted in this case. After the introduction of Section 113-A in the Evidence Act permission is given to the Court to draw a presumption that such suicide had been abetted by her husband in certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the suicide should have been committed by the wife within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage. The other condition is that it would be shown that the wife was subjected to cruelty. If these conditions are available then "having regard to all other circumstances of the case" the Court is given the discretion to presume that such suicide had been abetted by her husband. (Para 8)
Hence we upset the impugned order and direct the trial Court to proceed with the trial. None of the observations made in this judgment or in the impugned judgment shall have any influence on the trial Court while reaching the final decision in the matter. We also make it clear that respondent was already released on bail and hence he would continue to be on the same bail till the disposal of the case by the trial Court. The bail bond executed by him already will hereby revive. (Para 10)
ORDER
Leave granted.
Anupama, wife of the respondent, committed suicide on 24.12.1997. On a complaint lodged by her father an FIR was registered and subsequently a case was charge-sheeted against the respondent for offences under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court framed a charge after hearing both sides as required under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The charge contained the aforesaid offences. At the said stage respondent moved the High Court for quashing the said charge. By the impugned order learned Single Judge of the High Court quashed the charge.
2. It is contended in behalf of the appellant State that quashing the charge at this stage was uncalled for that the High Court went wrong in reading the suicide note with a particular interpretation at a too premature stage. At any rate it was contended that the sifting of evidence at this stage was not permitted by law.
3. Mr. P.S. Misra, learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned order was passed by the High Court after reading the suicide note in a comprehensive manner and the only inference which can be drawn from such a reading is that respondent is in no way responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased wife.
4. The main reasoning which apparently persuaded the learned Single Judge in adopting the course of quashing the charge is the following :
"Admittedly Anupama and Nagesh were living separately from Anupama s in-laws. The suicide note shows constant disputes and differences on trivial issues. Her main grievance against the petitioner was that he did not help her in day-to-day household work and she was finding it difficult to cope with the work along with her job. A comprehensive reading of FIR and suicide note does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of cruelty to an extent which would drive Anupama to commit suicide. Normal trivial household differences and disputes cannot always be brought within the meaning of Section 498-A."
5. A copy of the suicide note left behind by the deceased is produced for our perusal. The same was in Hindi but the English rendering of that is also supplied. Shorn of the details of the note, we may extract some portions of it which can have bearing on the question to be considered by the trial Court. Those portions read thus :
"Nagesh,
It had happened many times that you gave me beatings but all the time I cannot bear the beatings. Despite your so many promises that you will not beat me but I know that you would beat me again. Till you will not help me in the household work till then the affray will continue. You are not born in king s house so that after the meal I may carry utensils to the kitchen. If you do not get water with meals it does not mean that you took quarrel with me. If I do not pack your lunch box then you will threaten me that you would not carry the lunch box if I do not pack it. If I tell you to cut the vegetables, I have to give it in the bed. Give me knife, give me plate, give me newspaper, then I have to collect these things and even then you use to say that you have done this work.
xxx xxx xxx
After thinking whole night I have come to the conclusion that neither I can live separately nor I can change you or I can change myself. I cannot bear the taunts of my parents and if I say anything regarding your parents then I have to bear your beatings. That is why I have decided that I should not live any more, perhaps all this will end with my life."
6. Mr. P.S. Misra, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the English rendering on the first sentence of the suicide note can also be read as this :
"It had happened many times that you gave me beatings but I will not take further beatings."
7. We do not want to enter into an exercise as to which of the two different renderings would be more authentic or appropriate. The original of the suicide note would be available for the Court to read and understand what it contained.
8. We are at the quest
