The judgment emphasizes the need for specific evidence of abetment of suicide and systematic demand of dowry, cruelty, or mental torture to prove the charges under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. The State has preferred this Criminal Acquittal Appeal against judgment dated 11.07.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri in case FIR No. 84/1997 of Police Station Budhal, whereby respondents herein stand acquitted of the charges for the offences under Sections 306, 498-A RPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is based on occurrence dated 19.10.1997 when P/S. Budhal received information from reliable source that Mst. Shakuntala Devi D/o. Vijay Singh, R/o. Sakri, who was married with Jagdev Singh S/o. Bachittar Singh caste Rajput, R/o. Siari, Budhal around three years back. After marriage she was being ill-treated by her husband Jagdev Singh, brother in law Karnail Singh, sister in law Lajo Devi and Chatto Devi, all R/o. Siari, they used to taunt and torture her, because of their persistent harassment and torture she was driven to commit suicide on 18.10.1997 by pouring Kerosene oil over herself and thereafter setting herself on fire and because of burning she died.

3. On the basis of this reliable report, case FIR No. 84/97 under section 306 RPC came to be registered and its investigation entrusted to Rashpal Singh IHC who proceeded on spot seized body of the deceased and got post mortem conducted. On scrutiny of place of occurrence he seized one empty K. oil bottle (Plastic Bottle), one match box and burnt clothes of the deceased. Thereafter examining eye-witnesses it transpires before him that deceased Shakuntala Devi had been married with Jagdev Singh around three and half years back who used to taunt her for having brought less dowry. Accused Karnail Singh, Chatto Devi alongwith husband of deceased would often taunt and because of their harassment and taunting deceased Shakuntala Devi had earlier left her matrimonial house and gone to her parental house at Dhar Sakri. While she was on way her husband brought back home. That on the day of occurrence she was alone in her house and being fed up with persistent torture and taunting meeted to her by the accused she ended her life by burning herself. In burning condition she raised an alarm when some people of the locality heard her alarm who came to save her, however, she died at 4 PM. Accordingly on the basis of investigation case u/s. 498-A, 306 RPC was found to be made out against the accused Jagdev Singh, Karnail Singh and Chatto Devi. Challan came to be produced before JMIC, Budhal who upon finding case of exclusively Sessions trial, committed the case for trial to Session Judge Rajouri. Charge u/s. 498-A, 306 RPC came to be framed against the accused on 10.9.1998, who pleaded not guilty and in order to prove its case prosecution was directed to produce evidence. During trial accused Chatto Devi expired as a result proceedings against her came to be dropped.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW 1 Leelo Devi, PW 2 Sheeklo Devi, PW 4 Sher Singh, PW 5 Dharam Singh, PW 6 Vidya Devi, PW 7 Soma Devi, PW 8 Vijay Singh, PW 9 Shiv Dai, PW 10 Kako Devi, PW 11 Kashmiro Devi, PW 12 Bullo Begum, PW 13 Mohd. Bashir, PW 14 Mohd. Yakoob, PW 15 Kashmir Singh, PW 16 Mohd. Shafi, PW 17 Falail Singh, PW 18 Kamal Singh, PW 19 Prem Singh, PW 20 Zahoor Ahmed Shah BMO. However, PW 24 Rashpal Singh IO was not produced by the prosecution. After closure of evidence, accused Jagdev Singh, Karnail Singh and Chatto Devi were examined u/s. 342 Cr.P.C. whereby they took the defence that prosecution case is false and based on no evidence. Witnesses are having enmity with them. Accused though did enter in defence but failed to bring any defence evidence. Court below after hearing the APP and counsel for defense acquitted the accused persons on the grounds that prosecution has failed to prove reliable and convincing evidence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for appellant-State and respondents. I have also scanned the trial court file and evidence on record.

6. Learned counsel for respondents has argued that this court cannot interf