2013 Supreme(Raj) 1410
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Mohan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 1995.
Decided On : 3-07-2013
Advocates:
For the Appellant:VN. Kalla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution must provide cogent and unimpeachable evidence to prove instigation or abetment of suicide under Section 306 I.P.C.
Headnote:
306 I.P.C. - Suicide - Section 306 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offense under Section 306 I.P.C. and the evidence required to prove instigation or abetment of suicide. The court highlighted the significance of the letters written by the accused and their timing in relation to the suicide. The judgment emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution and the lack of cogent evidence to establish instigation or abetment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offense under Section 306 I.P.C. for the suicide of his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant harassed and humiliated the deceased, leading to her suicide. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide cogent and unimpeachable evidence to prove that the appellant instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The court emphasized the timing of the letters written by the appellant and the voluntary return of the deceased to the matrimonial home.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide, based on the prosecution's allegations of harassment and humiliation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must prove instigation or abetment with cogent and unimpeachable evidence. The timing of the letters and the voluntary return of the deceased were crucial in assessing the appellant's guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 I.P.C. was set aside. The appellant was acquitted of the charge.
JUDGMENT
1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 30.5.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R.I. with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months' imprisonment.
2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was married to Smt. Manju in the year 1980. Smt. Manju committed suicide at her matrimonial home on 28.3.1994 by hanging herself from a noose. The appellant was working as a teacher in the Government School and after coming back from the school, he found that the door of his house was closed from inside and no sound was coming from therein. On seeing inside the room through a lattice, it was seen that Manju was hanging from a nose tied to the wooden support of the ceiling. He immediately rushed back to his school and called his Principal etc. who reached the scene of occurrence and thereafter the appellant gave an oral report at Police Station Bhesrodgarh about his wife having committed suicide. On this report proceeding No. 2/1994 was initiated under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The police officers as well as the Executive Magistrate reached the scene of occurrence. The body of Manju was taken down and thereafter subjected to postmortem and it was found that she had committed suicide by hanging.
3. The S.H.O. Bhesrodgarh registered an F.I.R. No. 23/1994 against the appellant at the Police Station on 4.4.1994 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. based on the enquiry made from the maternal relatives of the deceased. At the conclusion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh framed a charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case. The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and examined four witnesses in his defence. The learned trial Judge vide judgment under challenge proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and sentenced him to three years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently challenged the conviction of the appellant and argued that there is no material on the record to show that the appellant fever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that the marriage of the appellant with the deceased was solemnised way back in the year 1980 whereas the deceased committed suicide in the year 1994 i.e. after nearly 14 years of the marriage. He urged that there is no material on record to show that the deceased had ever been harassed or humiliated by the appellant for any reason whatsoever. Learned counsel pointed out to the statements of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 and urged that these witnesses were the neighbours of the appellant and they did not state that the appellant ever maltreated the deceased. Rather they in their depositions stated that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were cordial. Commenting on the testimony of the witnesses PW-6 Chhitar Mai, PW-7 Bherulal (brother in law' of the deceased), PW-8 Rakesh Kumar (brother of the deceased), PW-9 Ramswaroop, PW-10 Mishrilal, PW-11 Bhanwari (mother of the deceased) and PW-12 Prabhu Dayal (father of the deceased), the learned counsel submitted that the testimony of these witnesses was neither reliable nor was corroborated by any plausible evidence. He contended that the letters which have been proved on record by the witness Prabhu Dayal were not recovered from the appellant and were not the part of the c
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
