The court ruled that without substantial evidence proving unnatural death or suicide, the applicant is entitled to bail, emphasizing the necessity of clear proof for conviction under IPC sections.

ORDER :

1. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 324/2021 registered at Police Station Sardarshahar, District Churu for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

2. Mr. Mahalana, learned counsel for the applicant invited Court's attention towards the charge-sheet and pointed out that charge-sheet has been filed alleging offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC committed by the applicant regardless of the fact that allegation of harassment and demand of dowry is not supported by any cogent evidence.

3. Learned counsel raised a fundamental argument that the applicant cannot be prosecuted for offence under Section 304B of the IPC because neither in the postmortem report nor in the statement given by the doctor in the Court, it has come on record that the deceased died an unnatural death or she has committed suicide.

4. He highlighted that as per the evidence on record, the deceased had made an attempt to hang herself, but while she was still alive, the family members came to know of such attempt and immediately got her down of the trap and rushed to the hospital, whereafter she died on the way to the hospital.

5. Learned counsel argued that when the cause of death or factum of suicide is not established, it cannot be said that the deceased (applicant's wife) has died under unnatural circumstances or has committed suicide. He added that regardless of the fact that harassment for the purpose of dowry or otherwise was meted out or not, the applicant cannot be prosecuted/convicted for abetment to suicide under Section 306 of the IPC or for offence under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that there is evidence pointing towards harassment and mutual fight between the applicant and his wife (deceased) and it was because of the conduct that said Preeti Kanwar (deceased) was driven to commit suicide.

7. He argued that maybe her attempt to commit suicide had not fructified and before she died, she was rushed to the hospital, but the death has to be seen in the light of the cruelty meted out and her attempt to hang herself.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor informed that the service upon the complainant has been effected.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material avaialble on record.

10. The first question to be determined in the present case is - the cause and nature of death. The facts of the case are peculiar, where apparently an attempt to commit suicide by said Preeti Kanwar has resulted in her death. The medical report or the doctor do not treat such death to be suicidial or a result of such attempt. It is noteworthy that neither the postmortem report nor does the statement of the doctor who has conducted postmortem disclose with certitude the cause of death.

11. Had the death occurred on account of hanging, the postmortem report would have definitely revealed such fact. Even during his deposition in the Court, the doctor (PW-4) was not in a position to state with confidence and clarity the cause of death. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that whether cruelty was meted out to the deceased or not, there is no substantial evidence to establish that the death occured consequent to hanging.

12. Alternatively, the second question which comes before this Court is - whether in absence of proof of existence of suicide can the applicant be convicted of abetment to suicide. In the opinion of this Court, in absence of substantial evidence establishing the death due to self hanging, it would not be expedient to keep the applicant behind bars till indefinite time.

13. The applicant is behind bars since 09.07.2021 and the proceedings before trial Court is likely to take substantial time inasmuch as only 7 witnesses out of list of 28 witnesses have been examined so far.

14. For the reasons aforesa