Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.
State (Now UT) of J&K – Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar and Another – Respondents
CRAA No. 9900004 of 2009
Decided On : 06-06-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - ACQUITTAL APPEAL - Sections 306, 498-A RPC - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 306 and 498-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), which pertain to abetment of suicide and cruelty to a woman, respectively. The court emphasized the necessity of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence of cruelty or dowry demands. The interpretations of these sections influenced the court's decision to uphold the trial court's acquittal of the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the suicide of Seema Devi, who died by drowning in the Ranbir Canal shortly after her marriage. The prosecution alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demands by her husband Rakesh Kumar and his relative Bholi Devi, leading to her suicide. The trial court acquitted the accused, prompting the State to appeal the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate its claims against the accused. Key witnesses did not report the alleged cruelty until after the death, and there was a significant delay in recording their statements, which cast doubt on their credibility. The court upheld the trial court's reasoning that mere suspicion could not replace the need for solid proof.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC despite the allegations of cruelty and dowry demands leading to the victim's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It emphasized that the evidence presented was unreliable and insufficient to establish the charges against the accused, thus justifying the acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's acquittal of the accused was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. This criminal acquittal appeal has been preferred by Appellant-State against judgment dated 08.09.2009 (“impugned judgment”) passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu ('Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 54/2002 titled State vs. Rakesh Kumar & Anr. whereby the accused Rakesh Kumar and Bholi Devi (hereinafter called respondents) were acquitted from the charge of commission of offences punishable U/Ss 306/498-A RPC, Arising Out of FIR No. 71/2002 U/Ss 498-A/306 RPC registered at Police Station Kana Chak, Jammu.
2. Having been aggrieved of the acquittal, the appellant-State after obtaining sanction to file appeal vide Govt. Order No. 2440-LD(ACQ) of 2009, dated 16.11.2009 preferred this appeal, assailing the impugned judgment on the following grounds:
(b) That the learned Trial 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 Trial Judge by ordering acquittal of the accused (Respondents) have committed grave error in law, which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment.
(d) That the prosecution has successfully proved the allegations leveled against the accused/respondents but even then the learned Judge has ordered their acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused 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 offences by the respondents/accused and prayed that the impugned judgment being not sustainable, be set-aside by allowing the appeal and the respondents be convicted and sentenced for the commission of offences punishable u/s 306, 498-A RPC, in the interest of justice.
4. 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, by a reasoned judgment and prayed that appeal be dismissed.
5. Heard, perused the record and considered.
6. Shorn of minute details, the factual matrix of the case is that one Seema Devi, wife of respondent no. 1 died on 08.06.2002, only after 13 months of her marriage, by committing suicide by drowning in Ranbir Canal; that on 09.06.2002, an application was filed by Jagdish Raj Sharma, Panch of Gurah Singhu in Police Station, Kana Chak stating therein that the deceased and her relative Kamli Devi had gone out of the house for evening walk on 08.06.2002 at 7 P.M. and that Seema Devi told Kamli Devi to go back as she would come later; however the deceased did not return, and when husband of the deceased found the deceased absent in the house on his return, he started searching her everywhere, but despite search he could not trace her; that later her family members found a pair of Nylon Chappels on the last step of the bathing ghat of Ranbir Canal; that on 24.06.2002 Police Station received a docket that a body of an unidentified woman has been fished out from the Ranbir Canal at Muthi near K.C. Road; that thereafter proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated and the dead body was identified to be that of the deceased and the statements of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
7. As per the investigation, it came out that Seema Devi was married to accused Rakesh Kumar just 13 months ago and after some time, both the respondents/accused persons Rakesh Kumar and Bholi Devi (bhabhi of Rakesh Kumar) started harassing the deceased by demanding dowry as well as casting derogatory remarks to the deceased being dark complexioned wo
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion is insufficient to establish a case under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC.
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.
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 ow....
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the principles governing appeals against orders of acquittal were central to the judgment.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to establish cruelty for the ofences under Ss. 306 and 498-A of IPC and the application of Sec. 113-A of the Evidence Act.
For a conviction under Sections 498-A and 306 RPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused's conduct constituted cruelty of such a nature that it compelled the victim to commit suicide, which req....
Point of Law : The scope of Section 378 of Cr.P.C., in dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal is to be borne in mind.
The judgment reaffirms the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in acquittal appeals and underscores the requirement for clear and compelling evidence to overturn a judgment of acquittal.
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
