Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Sunil Kumar and another - Respondents
Cr. Appeal No. 354 of 2015
Decided On : 19-03-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 - Appeal against acquittal - The State appealed against the acquittal of the accused persons for cruelty and abetment of suicide. The prosecution failed to establish that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty or abetted her suicide, as the evidence did not support the allegations. (Paras 1, 24, 39)
(B) Burden of Proof - In criminal trials, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court must be cautious in overturning an acquittal based on mere allegations without substantial evidence. (Paras 8, 13)
(C) Presumption of Innocence - The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-State challenged the acquittal of Sunil Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, accused of causing the suicide of Pooja Devi, who had a history of maltreatment. The deceased's family alleged harassment leading to her suicide, but evidence was insufficient. (Paras 1, 24)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence of cruelty or abetment by the accused. The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit. (Paras 40, 41)
Issues: The main issues included whether the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and whether there was evidence of abetment of suicide. (Paras 8, 24)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations of harassment do not suffice for conviction under Section 306 IPC; there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement leading to suicide. (Paras 39, 40)
Result: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sushil Kukreja, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment dated 25.02.2015, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, HP, in Sessions Trial No.2 of 2014, whereby the accused persons, namely Sunil Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “ IPC ”).
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on receipt of a telephonic information from the Medical Officer, CHC, Barsar on 15.09.2013 to the effect that one Pooja Devi, wife of Sunil Kumar had been brought to the hospital with an alleged history of consumption of some poisonous substance, the police visited the hospital and moved an application to the Medical Officer to record the statement of Pooja Devi, but she was found unfit to make the statement and after sometime, she had expired. The police procured MLC of the deceased alongwith sample of gastric lavage and thereafter her dead body was taken to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur for postmortem. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of Sukh Dev, father of the deceased, under Section 154, Cr.P.C on 16.09.2013, wherein he disclosed that the marriage of his deceased daughter Pooja Devi was solemnized with accused Sunil Kumar on 20.07.2010 as per Hindu rites and customs and out of the said wedlock, one son was born. In the month of June, 2013, when he visited his native place, then he called deceased Pooja Devi to his house, but she refused to come without giving any reason. On this, he along with his nephew Manoj Kumar went to her matrimonial home at Bal, where she disclosed that accused Sunil Kumar used to ill-treat and harass her. Earlier also, she had disclosed the said fact to him, but at that time he made her to understand. Thereafter, he also brought the said fact to the notice of Udham Singh, who had arranged the said marriage. He alongwith his relatives once or twice visited the house of accused Sunil Kumar to make him understand, but he did not pay any heed and whenever accused Sunil Kumar used to come to their house to drop deceased Pooja Devi, he used to drop her upto the road and used to return therefrom only. On 15.09.2013, his nephew Manoj Kumar told him that Pooja Devi had died in Barsar Hospital, but accused Sunil Kumar or any of his relatives did not disclose the said fact to them. Thereafter, on reaching home, he came to know that accused persons Sunil Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, under the influence of liquor, used to tease the deceased and due to their ill- treatment and harassment, she got fed-up and committed suicide. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR in question was registered against the accused persons. During further course of the investigation, the police prepared the spot map, clicked the photographs and after conducting the postmortem, the body of deceased was handed over to accused Sanjay Kumar. After completion of the investigation, police presented the charge-sheet before the learned Trial Court against the accused persons for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, read with Section 34 of IPC .
3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they claimed innocence and denied the prosecution case. They also examined one witness in their defence.
4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 25.02.2015, acquitted the accused persons for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC , hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State.
5. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against
In appeals against acquittal, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations of harassment do not suffice for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence prevails, requiring clear evidence of instigation or cruelty for a conviction under IPC sections concerning abetment of suicide.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions directly abetted the suicide, with evidence of cruelty being essential for conviction under IPC Sections 498-A and 306.
Court emphasized the necessity of establishing clear evidence of cruelty to invoke presumption of abetment of suicide under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, reinforcing the presumption of innocence ....
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish abetment of suicide; clear evidence of intent and coercion is required.
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under IPC Sections 306 and 498-A; clear evidence of instigation is necessary.
Abetment of suicide – Merely on allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on part of accused which led or compelled the person to commit sui....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
