2006 Supreme(SC) 442

2006(4) Supreme 94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Sahebrao and Anr.—Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 2005
Decided on 3-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Sudhanshu Choudhary, Naresh Kumar Advocates.
For the Respondent : V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 306 and 498-A—Appellants A2 husband and his brother A1 convicted under after they with their mother were tried for offences u/s 304B and 498A IPC—A3 mother was acquittal by trial Court—High Court upheld conviction in appeal—Appeal—Deceased was married to A2 on 13-5-1990 and she committed suicide by poisoning on 8-9-1990—Delay in lodging FIR as it was lodged on 9-9-1990 at 7.30 P.M.—Delay in filing FIR by itself could not be a ground to doubt prosecution case and discard it—After finding his newly wedded daughter’s dead body in matrimonial home where he had left her just a day before incident, it was natural for a father PW1 to lose his tranquility of mind and if he took some time to lodge report, it was not unnatural or unusual—There did not appear any reason to falsely implicate accused—PW1 deposed that soon after marriage, A2 demanded a tape recorder and was corroborated by PW3 and 4—PW1 stated further that deceased had told him that accused on account of non-fulfilment of their demand had troubled her and that A1 had demanded additional amount of Rs. 10,000/—It was also supported by PWs 3 and 4—Evidence established that accused were consistent in their demand—Reluctance shown by deceased to go to her matrimonial home within short period of her marriage was indicative of treatment given to her—On basis of evidence it could be said that cruel treatment meted out to deceased was of such a nature that it had driven her to commit suicide—No reasonable or trustworthy explanation to rebut presumption u/s 113A Evidence Act—Conviction called for no interference.

       Held : It has come in evidence that when the father reached Village Babulkheda at about 1.00 P.M. on 08-09-1990 he found his daughter dead and nobody was present in the house. When the police came and made inquires he said that he was shocked and was not mentally fit to lodge the complaint and would do so later on. After finding her newly wedded daughter’s dead body in her matrimonial home where he had left her just before a day of incident, it was very natural for a father to lose his tranquility of mind. Hence if such grief-stricken father had told the police that he would give the complaint afterwards, it was not unnatural or unusual. PW-6, who was posted at Shivoor Police Station, had also deposed about the fact that when the father was asked about the incident he had stated that he would lodge the complaint later on as he was disturbed. Two courts below have found the explanation given by the prosecution to be satisfactory and sufficient for a delay in complaint.(Para 10)

       There does not appear to be any reason to falsely implicate the accused-appellants into the commission of crime. There is no allegation made in the complaint that her daughter was done to death by the appellants. The complaint contains the narration of facts and harassment during the period of marriage which took place on 13-05-1990 and death of his daughter which took place on 08-09-1990, from which an inference can be drawn for the commission of the offence by the accused-appellants who were allegedly consistently pestering for bringing money.(Para 11)

       In the circumstances, we do not find that simply because the FIR was lodged with some delay, the allegations in the FIR are unworthy of credence or that PW-1 has falsely implicated the accused appellants in the commission of crime.(Para 12)

       The complainant (PW-1) has deposed that soon after the performance of marriage, A-2 demanded a tape recorder. This statement is corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4. PW-3 has deposed that when PW-4 along with him went to Village Babulkheda 2-3 days after marriage of his sister, A-1 demanded an additional amount of Rs 10,000/- and A-2 demanded a tape-recorder. This found support from the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 without any variation. Further PW-1 in his evidence has specifically said that deceased had told him that the accused persons on account of the non-fulfillment of their demands, troubled her. There is evidence on record of PW-1 that when his daughter came back to his place she started weeping and told the complainant about the harassment inflicted upon her on account of non-payment of Rs. 10,000/-. This found support in the statements of PW-3 and PW-4. The evidence shows that even the demand was made through the younger brother Mansub when he went to the place of the complainant. PW-1 has further mentioned that in the end of jaishth month, he went to village Babulkheda to see his daughter and was insulted by the accused persons for not fulfilling their demand and they asked him to take her back to village Pathri. It is said by PW-1 that just 8 days before the incident when the deceased last visited her maiden home she told him that she was beaten and also showed marks of beating on her body. She was weeping and requested him not to send her back to village Babulkheda without satisfying the demand of the accused persons. The evidence clearly establishes that the accused persons were consistent in their demand regarding additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- even after their initial demand of tape recorder was fulfilled. The evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was harassed at her matrimonial home and her staying there had become miserable. The deceased on several occasions, within a short span of four months of her marriage, informed her father that she was being troubled by her husband and his elder brother. They also insulted and taunted her father in her presence and asked PW-1 to take her back to his home for his inability to fulfill their unlawful demand. The reluctance shown by the deceased to go to her matrimonial home within a short period of her marriage is indicative of the fact of the treatment given to her. At her matrimonial home, she was harassed and constantly nagged for non-payment of additional amount by her father. The facts clearly establish that husband and his elder brother subjected the deceased to cruelty and their conviction under Section 498-A, IPC is based on cogent reliable evidence.(Para 17)

       The appellants were also convicted under Section 306 IPC with the aid of the presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is proved by the prosecution that Sangita committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband and his elder brother subjected her to cruelty. On the basis of the evidence, it can be said that the cruel treatment meted out to the deceased was of such a nature that it has driven the lady to commit suicide.(Para 18)

       Neither any evidence was led by the defence nor from the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, we can draw a plausible, reasonable and trustworthy explanation to rebut the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has sufficiently proved by cogent evidence that the accused-appellants by series of acts and conduct created such a difficult and hostile environment for deceased that she was compelled to commit suicide. In the light of the discussion in regard to the cruelty committed by the accused persons to the deceased under Section 498-A, IPC, there is a direct and reasonable nexus with the commission of suicide by the deceased with the act of cruelty to which the deceased was subjected to by the accused-appellants.(Para 21)