1997(1) Crimes (SC) 10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. Ray and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Balram Prasad Agrawal -Appellant
versus
State of Bihar & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 1996
Decided on 10-12-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
In a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but in a case of suicide once the prosecution is found to have shown that the accused were guilty of persistent conduct of cruelty qua the deceased, a young housewife, spread over years, the facts which were in the personal knowledge of the accused who were present in the house on the date of the incident could have been revealed by them to disprove the prosecution case of cruelty.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 498-A-Suicide by young housewife with minor children by jumping in well in compound of their house-All accused, mother-in-law, husband and brother in law were in the house on that night-Victim was residing with them with her two minor children Persistent hostile conduct of accused over years as deposed by father of deceased-Act of cruelty perpetrated on her on fateful night revealed by well established clinching circumstances-Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt offence u/s 498-A-Accused alone must be held responsible for driving the deceased to commit suicide by their misconduct-Matter adjourned to 17-1-97 for hearing accused on question of sentence.

       Held that on the facts of the present case the prosecution has been able to bring home to the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt offence under Section 49B-A, IPC read with Explanation (a). When she was driven to take such a drastic step all the accused including acquitted accused mother-in-law were in the house and along with them resided the victim and her two minor children. Hence the accused alone must be held responsible for driving her to commit suicide by their misconduct which had led to a quarrel and shouting revealing the voice of a woman as admitted even by the hostile witness P.W. 3 who actually heard the same being the next door neighbour. All the circumstances proved by the prosecution clinchingly establish the culpability of the accused themselves and no one else. These established circumstances wholly rule out any reasonable possibility of innocence of the accused from any viewpoint. In other words the chain in the circumstantial evidence is so complete against the accused as to rule out any other hypothesis about their innocence. We accordingly convict respondent No.2 Paran Prasad Agrawal and respondent No.3 Girbar Prasad Agrawal of offences punishable under Section 49B-A, IPC. (Para 13)

       (ii) Constitution of India-Article 142-lndian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 498-A-Appeal against acquittal for offence u/s 302 Unnatural death-Police had charge-sheeted accused also alternatively u/s 498-A- Trial Court framed charge u/s 302 only-Evidence on record clearly attracted charge u/s 498-AThis Court in exercise of powers under Article 142 may itself examine question .of culpability of accused for offence u/s 498-A to obviate protraction of trial and multiplicity of proceedings against accused.

       (iii) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 106-Applicability and scope onus of proof-In a criminal case burden of proof is on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt-Case of suicide by it young housewife-Once prosecution is found to have shown that accused were guilty of persistent conduct of cruelty qua deceased spread over years-On that fateful night apart from victim only accused were in the house-Facts which were in personal knowledge of accused could have been revealed by them to disprove prosecution case. (Para 8)

       (iv) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114-Presumptions-Unnatural death-Suicide by young housewife Evidence of father of deceased that his daughter's married life in household of accused had undergone rough weather all throughout-Complainant's evidence that his deceased daughter had earlier tried to commit suicide but was saved by neighbours-Presumption of continuance of cruel treatment meted out to deceased by accused till the date she was forced to commit suicide-Presumption u/s 114 remained unrebutted-Conviction u/s 498-A IPC. (Para 12)

       (v) Evidence Act, 1872-Section. 60-oral evidence must be direct Hearsay-Evidentiary value and admissibility-Rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence. (Para 10)

       (vi) EVIDENCE-Hostile witness- Evidence of hostile witness to the extent it corroborates prosecution version can be relied upon.

       Held: So far as the evidence of hostile witnesses Shiv Nath Mahto, P.W. 4, Laxmi Mahto, P.W. 3 as well as Ajay Mittal, P.W. 2 is concerned it becomes clear that they have resiled from their original versions before the Investigating Officer with a view to help their neighbours the present accused and their contrary versions on oath before the court were clearly unreliable and false ones. We could, therefore, reject their versions and on the contrary rely upon the natural version of P.W. 6, complainant whose evidence appears to be more reliable and credit Worthy and which gets corroborated even by the evidence of hostile witness P.W. 3. We may also note that even if the nature of information alleged to be conveyed to P.W. 6 the father of the deceased by the neighbours about what was actually heard by them on that fateful night may be ruled out as hearsay, the fact that some information was conveyed to him by the neighbours on 12th November 1988 which prompted him to rush to police as he entertained grave doubt on the basis of what was conveyed to him by neighbours about the conduct of the accused on that night and which made him apprehend about their culpability in connection with unnatural death of his daughter, would remain admissible in evidence as the conduct of this witness P.W. 6 propelled by the fact of such information by neighbours about what the witness did on 12th November 1988 and not earlier by approaching police. That part of his evidence was not shaken in cross examination. Not only that but even the hostile witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 who are alleged to have given some information to the witness P.W. 6 on 12th November 1988 had not even whispered

       either in their chief examination or cross examination about their not having conveyed any information or not having met P.W. 6 on 12th November 1988 as deposed to by P.W. 6 in his evidence. This part of the evidence of P.W. 6 would not be hit by the rule of exclusion of hearsay evidence. (Para 11)

       Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction recorded. Matter adjourned to 17-1-97 for hearing accused on question of sentence.