IMPORTANT POINT
General allegations of torture by husband, in law etc. on married woman are not sufficient to prove abetment in commission of suicide

Headnote:Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 306/34 - Conviction of in laws of deceased for offence of abetment to suicide - Deceased had been got married on 19-4-1980 & she committed suicide by poison on 15-9-1982 to matrimonial house - Evidence of parents of deceased & deceased used to be tortured for demand of dowry in material house - Evidence of torture & cruelty was general & not a definite & authentic as to when & on which date appellants & husband of deceased told deceased that they would be relieved If she died General allegations of torture however strong It might be would not make out a case of abetment to suicide - Abettor must be proved to have substantially assisted In commission of suicide - No evidence of any act or conduct of appellant to establish direct nexus or close In proximity prior to suicide Conviction could not be sustained.
       Held: Analysing the evidence of witnesses we find that deceased Kusum came to her parents house on 13-9-1982 and she returned back to her in-laws house on 14-9-1982 at about 10.30 p.m. and she committed suicide on 15-9-1982 by consuming poison towards noon. There is nothing in evidence that on 13-9-1982 or 14-9 1982 or 15-9-1982 this appellant did such act or uttered such things which was so formidable and compelling in nature that lead to the commission of suicide. We have already observed that except general or casual remark of torture on Kusum by the appellant demanding more money ornaments etc. there is no particular evidence as to quantum of money ornaments etc. demanded by the appellant or the months and dates on which such demand was made. Rather it transpires that deceased Kusum was in visiting terms to her parents house off and on after a gap of 5/10 days and sometimes members of her in-laws accompanied her to her parents house. The evidence also established a fact that she often used to talk with her parents over telephone and evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is silent that over phone Kusum ever informed them about torture on her. (Para 23)
       In a joint family of Indian society domestic quarrel between a. wife and her husband or in-laws difference of opinion between the daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law or father-in-law between wife and husband are natural and expected, but these circumstances are not sufficient so as to constitute abetment to commit suicide unless there is strong and cogent evidence that act or conduct of in-laws or husband either singly or cumulatively were of such formidable and compelling nature which lead to the commission of suicide. Stray domestic quarrels perfunctory abuses by mother-in-law to daughter-in-law in Indian society is common and such incidence cannot be denied. There may be some indecent and uncultured behaviour by the in-laws or the husband towards the wife and these are normal incidence or occurrence in traditional joint Hindu family. Unfortunately in the instant case we did not find any such evidence to show that the acts or conduct either singly or cumulatively of the appellant was of such formidable and compelling nature which lead to the commission of suicide by Kusum. (Para 24)
       The evidence which the prosecution could introduce before the Court was not sufficient at all to prove abetment by the appellant in the commission of suicide by deceased Kusum. There is no evidence of any act or conduct of appellant to establish direct nexus or close in proximity prior to the suicide sufficient to establish abetment by appellant. There is no evidence at all as well as circumstance to prove that the appellant assisted in the commission of the offence of suicide by her active suggestion, solicitation, insinuation or encouragement. There is also no evidence that incitement, provocation, encouragement, etc. were given by the appellant and all-such acts or any of them was positive in nature or of such a degree that the outcome of such act was none other but commission of suicide. General allegations of torture by the husband, father-in-law mother-in-law, etc. on the married wife or torture or teasing the newly married wife demanding dowry, more ornaments, articles, etc. may be elements of other offence, namely under Section 498A of IPC, but such general allegations of torture are not sufficient at all to prove abetment by the accused appellant in the commission of suicide by deceased Kusum. We find that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge under Sections 306/34 of IPC against the appellant and conviction of the appellant under Sections 306/34 of IPC' cannot be allowed to stand. (Para 26)
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Provandu Narayan Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Judge, 12th Bench of City Sessions Court, Calcutta in Session Trial No. 1 of May, f985 (Sessions Case No. 15 of 1984) whereby the learned Judge sentenced the appellants to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more for offence under Sections 306/34 of IPC. During pendency of the appeal the appellant No. 1 Surajmal Banthia has expired and the appeal against him has abated. Therefore, only appellant No. 2 Smt. Doli Devi Banthia is before us in this appeal and we are to consider whether the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is sustained in law and fact.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Kusum Bothra (Banthia), the daughter of Dhanraj Bothra (P.W. 1) and Mohini Bothra (P.W. 2) was given in marriage with Indrajit Banthia, son of the appellant on 19th April, 1980. After marriage of Kusum Banthia her husband and parents of husband started physical torture on her and ill-treated her. On 15-9-1982 -at about 18.15 hours P.Ws. 1 and 2 received information over phone from Bijoy Singh Baid (P.W. 5) that Kusum Banthia (deceased) fell unconscious in her in-laws flat at 132/1. M.G. Road. Accordingly, P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the flat of father-in-law Kusum Banthia and found their daughter Kusum lying unconscious on bed. P.W. 1 did not find pulse beat or heart beat of Kusum and at his request Kusum Banthia was removed to Marwari Relief Society Hospital where she was declared brought dead at 19.35 hours on 15-9-1982. The inquest and post-mortem examination were made on 16-9-1982 and the autopsy surgeon who held the post-mortem examination opined that death was due to poisoning. It was learnt that the deceased Kusum Banthia committed suicide by consuming poison. S.I. of Police S. Roy of Forasankho P.S. lodged suo motu FIR (Ext. 6) and on the basis of it Forasankho P.S. Case No. 487 dated 16-9-1982 under Sections 306/34 of IPC was stated. After completing investigation the police submitted chargesheet against Surajmal Banthia (deceased) and Doly Debi Banthia and after trial the learned Judge held them guilty under Sections 306/34 of IPC and convicted them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 8 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 25.000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more as already mentioned earlier.

3. Mr. Bhaskar Sen learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and order of the conviction is bad in law and there was no evidence at all that the appellant subjected the deceased Kusum to cruelty. The deceased Kusum Banthia stayed in her in-laws house for a very brief period as from evidence it transpires that three months after marriage she returned to her parents house and stayed there for six months. Evidence further discloses that she had been to Rajasthan twice with her in-laws and she also went to Rajasthan once with her parents on the occasion of her youngest sister Sumans marriage. From evidence of witnesses it further transpired that Kusum and her husband Indrajit lived separately for about two months at 24, Banstola Lane. Barring a casual statement that in-laws tortured her physically and mentally and demanded more money, ornaments and other valuables there is nothing in evidence to establish that the appellant perpetrated physical and mental torture on her amounting to abetment to commit suicide. P.W. 1 Dhanraj Bothra uttered names of three persons namely Manik Banthia. Kamal Singh Bhutorla and Manik Babus employer Mohorlal Mohta and requested them to settle the dispute concerning his daughter but none of these three persons were examined. PW 1 also uttered name of Bijoy Singh Baid but P.W. 5 Bijoy Singh Baid did not state anything about torture on deceased Kusum by the appellant.

4. Mr. Sen further contended that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(AP) 458

IMPORTANT POINTGeneral allegations of torture by husband, in law etc. on married woman are not sufficient to prove abetment in commission of suicide

IMPORTANT POINT
General allegations of torture by husband, in law etc. on married woman are not sufficient to prove abetment in commission of suicide