Conclusive evidence is required to establish offences under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC, and mere harassment does not invite Section 306 RPC if the wife commits suicide without mens rea.

JUDGMENT

Mohd. Akram Chowdhary, J. - This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State, against the judgment dated 05.06.2018 (hereinafter called 'impugned judgment' for short) passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (hereinafter called 'trial court' for short) in file no. 122/Challan/25/35/Sessions titled State vs. Vijay Kumar, whereby respondent/accused had been acquitted of the charge of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306/498-A RPC, in a case registered vide FIR No. 114/2008 at Police Station Nagrota, Jammu.

2. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that the same is contrary to law and against the facts of the case, passed in a mechanical manner without appreciating the evidence including circumstantial available on record; that the trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence drawing wrong conclusion against the evidence; that there was sufficient material on record to convict the respondent, however, the case has resulted into acquittal for misappreciation, of the evidence.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that deceased-Makhna Devi wife of the respondent, was harassed with the demands of dowry and on domestic issues subjecting her to cruelty; that within 7 years of her marriage, the deceased on 13.05.2008 took an extreme step to end her life by consuming some poisonous substance and that she committed suicide having been abetted by the respondent/accused. He further argued that a case was registered vide FIR No. 122/2008 at the local Police Station, Nagrota and after investigation, the charge-sheet for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/306 RPC was laid against the respondent/accused in the Court of law. The trial court after hearing prosecution and defense, charge-sheeted the accused for the commission of the aforementioned offences who pleaded innocence and denied the charge. He further argued that, during trial, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded, however, respondent did not lead any evidence in rebuttal and the trial court by its judgment dated 05.06.2018 acquitted the accused of the charges; that the appellant after the grant of sanction to file the appeal from the State Government filed this appeal. He further argued that the trial court has committed grave error in appreciating the evidence though there was sufficient evidence particularly the statements of PW Sanjay Kumar and PW Ashwani Kumar, brothers of the deceased who had clearly stated that the respondent/accused used to quarrel with the deceased and also used to beat her with the demands of dowry. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence besides having the presumption of abetment of suicide of the wife by the husband within seven years of their marriage and the Trial Court should have convicted the respondent/accused but instead he was acquitted of both the charges for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A/306 RPC. He further submitted that since the trial court has committed illegality by not passing a judgment of conviction and prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the trial court be set-aside and the respondent be convicted for the commission of offences of which he was charged, in the interest of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused, ex adverso, while supporting the impugned judgment passed by the trial court argued that there is no incriminating evidence so as to constitute the offences of which the respondent/accused had been charge-sheeted while making a reference to the statements of two of the witnesses PW Sanjay Kumar and PW Ashwani Kumar, both brothers of deceased that though they had deposed that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased. However, to constitute an offence of abetment to suicide, there must be instigation, that too clear and specific and the same cannot be presumed as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has