The need for grave suspicion to frame a charge under Section 498A/306/34 IPC, and the importance of evidence implicating the accused.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner impugns order on charge dated 7.11.2017 whereby charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 498A/306/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short).

2. Deceased married the son of the petitioner on 08.12.2012. On 10.07.2015, deceased committed suicide. FIR was registered on the complaint of the father of the deceased lodged on 27.09.2015.

3. The allegations in the FIR are that the married life of complainant’s daughter with the one Bibhoo Kumar, who was the son of the petitioner, was not good. It is alleged that petitioner used to mentally torture the deceased. The son of the petitioner used to work as an engineer in Chhattisgarh. When the husband of the deceased used to go to work, petitioner used to harass the deceased by saying that she would get the deceased divorced from her son.

4. It is alleged that when the deceased shifted to Delhi, petitioner used to torture the deceased over the phone. It is alleged that there were fights between the deceased and her husband at various occasions. Subsequently, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from the fan.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that father of the deceased in his very first statement to the Executive Magistrate on 11.07.2015, after the deceased committed suicide on 10.07.2015, stated that there was no problem in the matrimonial life of the deceased and he had no knowledge if the deceased was mentally disturbed.

6. It is further submitted that the deceased was living in a house separate from the petitioner – mother in law, when she committed suicide. It is submitted that the deceased committed suicide in Delhi whereas the petitioner lives in Ranchi and for the last several months they were living separately.

7. It is further submitted that the brother – Pratik Rai and nephew – Subodh Roy of the deceased in their respective statements to the Executive Magistrate on 11.07.2015, after the deceased committed suicide on 10.05.2017, stated that they did not blame anyone for the suicide.

8. It is contended that the suicide note relied on by the prosecution does not have any allegations against the petitioner – mother in law.

9. In the impugned order on charge, Trial Court has relied upon the statement of the father made on 27.09.2015 and also the suicide note allegedly left behind by the deceased.

10. It may be noted that the father in his first statement to the Executive Magistrate, given on the very next day of the suicide had stated as under:

“Stated that I live on the above mentioned address alongwith my family. Preeti Rai was my daughter and I arranged her marriage on 06.12.2012 alongwith Sh. Bibhoo Kumar. The said marriage was performed after the consent and satisfaction of both the families as per rites and customs. After the marriage she left for her matrimonial home in Ranchi. After the marriage, the matrimonial life was going on smoothly and she had no complaint in her matrimonial home. Approximately 10 months prior to the incident Preeti had come to stay with me at my house as Bibhoo used to work in Raigarh. Bibhoo also used to frequently visit my house and even Preeti went to Raigarh. Preeti and Bibhoo were both looking for jobs in Delhi and due to this around one month back Preeti had taken a house near my house on rent. Bibhoo also stayed in the new house for some days and left back on 1st of July. As per my knowledge there was nothing which showed that Preeti was disturbed or she was having some problem. Yesterday on 10.07.15 at about 2 PM I got to know on phone that Preeti had committed suicide. I authenticate the suicide note written by Preeti as it has been written in her own handwriting. For this mishappening I don't hold any one responsible. Preeti might have taken this step due to depression. I have read over my statement and acknowledged the same to be correct.”

11. The suicide note, as per the prosecution case, left beh