IMPORTANT POINT
The mere existence of illicit relations does not amount to abetment of suicide unless it can be shown that such relations constituted mental cruelty severe enough to drive the spouse to take their own life.

JUDGMENT :

MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. This criminal acquittal appeal has been preferred by Appellant-State against judgment dated 01.08.2007 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri in case State v. Devinder Paul & Anr. whereby the accused Devinder Paul and Nimbo Devi (hereinafter called respondents) were acquitted from the charge of commission of offence punishable u/s 306 RPC.

2. Shorn of minute details, the factual matrix of the case is that one Babli Devi, wife of respondent no. 1 died on 24.06.1999 within six months of her marriage at village Doongi; that a complaint was lodged by one Sita Ram cousin of the deceased at Police Station Nowshera that the deceased had committed suicide because she was subjected to mental torture by respondents; that on this report a case was registered vide FIR No. 35/1999 at P/S Nowshera for the commission of offence punishable u/s 306 RPC; that during investigation which was conducted by HC Ved Prakash, it was found that the deceased had committed suicide by taking poisonous substance 'Nuvan' and after investigation of the case the investigating agency came to the conclusion that the deceased had committed suicide on being subjected to mental cruelty by both the respondents as they had illicit relations which became an eye sore for the deceased as she could not tolerate the same and thus she committed suicide, having been abetted due to their cruelty and laid charge sheet before the court of law.

3. The case having been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Nowshera to Sessions Court at Rajouri, the accused/respondents were chargesheeted for the commission of offence punishable u/s 306 RPC vide order dated 28.08.1999, who pleading innocence, denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge against the accused/respondents examined prosecution witnesses and the trial court on conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment acquitted both the accused/respondents of the charge.

4. Having been aggrieved of the acquittal, the appellant after obtaining sanction to file appeal vide Govt. Order No. 2833-LD(ACQ) of 2007, dated 17.10.2007 preferred this appeal, assailing the impugned judgment on the following grounds:

(a) That order/judgment impugned in appeal is against the law and facts of the case, as such, is required to be set aside.

(b) That the learned Judge has mis-appreciated the evidence and misconstrued the law attracted to the facts of the present case, as such the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside on this score also.

(c) That the learned Judge by ordering acquittal of the accused (Respondents) have committed grave error, which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment.

(d) That the prosecution has successfully proved the allegations leveled against the respondents and the oral and documentary evidence produced during the trial has undoubtedly established the commission of alleged offences by the respondents but even then the learned Judge has ordered their acquittal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has passed not only an erroneous but illegal judgment, while mis-appreciating the evidence brought on record, though the appellant while prosecuting the respondents had brought on record sufficient oral and documentary evidence which established the commission of the alleged offence against the respondents and prayed that the judgment being not sustainable be set-aside by allowing the appeal and the respondents be convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence punishable u/s 306 RPC.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that there was no credible evidence against the respondents to bring home the charge against them, as such, the trial court has rightly recorded the acquittal of both the respondents. He further argued that PW-1 Angrez Lal who is complainant in the case was just a hearsay witness who had reported the matter to police only and had no personal know