The central legal point established in the judgment is that to prove abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation or active facilitation of the suicide, and mere allegations of harassment or extramarital affairs are not sufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 29.11.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, ( for brevity ‘trial Court’) in case titled State vs. Ved Parkash alias Sanju vide which, respondent-Ved Parkash has been acquitted of the charges under Section 306 RPC in FIR No. 49/2010 of Police Station, Ramnagar.

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

On 12.03.2009 information was received by Police Station, Ramnagar that a dead body of a woman was hanging on a tree which is that of one Shakuntia Devi, aged 25 years W/o Ved Parkash R/o Shatiyari, Ramnagar. The dead body was brought by the family members of the deceased to their home. Police came to know about this occurrence and proceeded under Section 174 CrPC. Mr. Javed Akhtar Inspector visited the spot and took the photographs and sent the dead body for post mortem and prepared the Farad Surate-hall of the deceased. He seized the plastic rope about 5 feet long which was produced by Ved Parkash. Site plan was prepared. Hair clip of the deceased was also seized. The clothes of the dead body were seized by Police Station, Ramnagar. As per the investigation conducted by the Sr. Superintendent it was found that the deceased was married to the accused-respondent according to the Hindu customs. Their relation was normal and cordial. The accused-respondent was harassing the deceased-Shakuntla Devi and he used to have drinks and would not permit her to visit her parental abode. The accused-respondent was in relations with some woman and due to the said extra marital affair the relations between the spouses became bitter and the deceased was forced to commit suicide because of such cruelty, which was perpetrated upon her by the accused-respondent herein.

3. On this aforesaid report, case under Section 306 RPC under FIR No. 49/2010 was registered.

4. After investigation a challan for the offences punishable under Section 306 was filed against the respondent before the Sub-Judge, Ramnagar, wherefrom the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Udhampur. The accused-respondent was charged by the trial Court for offences under Section 306 RPC, whereby he pleaded innocence and claimed trial, promoting the trial Court to ask for the prosecution evidence.

5. Mr. P. D. Singh, learned Dy. A. G argued that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence and evidence so produced establishes the charge beyond doubt, but the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned order of acquittal which is required to be set aside and convict the respondent-accused, as there is sufficient evidence to prove commission of offence.

6. Mr. R. K. S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent has primarily submitted that no case is made out against the respondent as the allegations and the material collected during investigation and evidence produced during trial, do not show that there was any act done by the respondent vis-à-vis the deceased.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully examined the material evidence on record.

8. The prosecution in order to prove the charges relied upon the statements of the following witnesses;

Bansi Lal, father of the deceased has stated That 7-8 years before the marriage of his daughter took place with the accused-respondent herein and he was informed on the day of the occurrence that his daughter had died. He took 5-6 persons with him and went to the house of the accused where he saw the dead body of his daughter kept in the kitchen. He found the marks around-his neck and village people told him that she has committed suicide by hanging. He stated that deceased told him that her husband was given to drinking and he had illicit relation with one woman and he was residing with that woman and he did not now like her and because of the same fact that he was constant to commit suicide.

In cross examination he stated that the deceased-Shakuntla Devi used to remain perturbe