IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty and abetment of suicide – Mere harassment by itself could not be treated to be cruelty – Matrimonial disputes or discord would not be sufficient in itself to attract provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,¹[For short, ‘the Penal Code’] having been overturned by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,²[For short, ‘the High Court’] into his conviction, the appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that in January 2008, Sanjay Kumar, A1,³[For short, ‘the appellant’] got married to Lata,⁴[For short, ‘the victim]. On the same day, the younger sister of the victim, Manju was also married. Sometime after their marriage, it was alleged that the mother of the appellant, Kaushalya,⁵[For short, ‘A2’], sisters Neelam,⁶[For short, ‘A3’] and Reema,⁷[For short, ‘A4’] used to harass the victim on one pretext or the other. This fact was noticed by the younger sister of the victim, Diksha. It was further alleged that yet another sister of the victim, namely Mamta also noticed the harassment of the victim when she visited her matrimonial home. The death anniversary of the victim’s father was in May 2008, when all the sisters were present at their parental house. The appellant had accompanied his wife to her parental house. It was stated that on that day, there were arguments between the appellant and the victim, which required the intervention of some of the family members. Sometime in July 2009, the victim gave birth to a daughter and, hence, the victim’s sister had joined her at the matrimonial home. It was alleged that acts of torturing the victim continued and she was not being given proper food. On the fateful day, the family of the victim received a phone call by which they were informed that the victim had consumed poison, as a result of which she was taken to hospital. She, thereafter, died during the course of treatment. A report was, accordingly, lodged with the police authorities and investigation was undertaken. At the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The appellant along with A2 to A4 were charged of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code. All the accused did not accept their guilt and were, accordingly, tried.

3. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses to bring home the charge against the accused. The witnesses included family members of the victim, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, the Medical Officer, a pharmacist and the Investigation Officer. The defence of the accused was that of denial. The learned Judge of the Sessions Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, held that the demand of dowry as well as the acts of cruelty had not been proved by the prosecution. The evidence brought on record was mostly hearsay and in general terms. With no injuries found on the body of the victim nor any report of her physical torture having been reported to any authority, it was held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges levelled against all the accused. By the judgment dated 10.06.2010, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court acquitted all the accused persons.

4. The State of Himachal Pradesh, being aggrieved, challenged the acquittal of all the accused by preferring an appeal before the High Court. The High Court was of the view that though the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against A2 to A4, the said charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. It was on account of the acts of torture and the giving of abuses to the victim that the victim was driven to commit suicide within a short duration of her marriage. Accordingly, the acquittal of the appellant by the Sessions Court was reversed and he was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Penal Code. The appellant was then heard on the quantum of sentence. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and also ordered to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable