Insufficient evidence of harassment or coercion to meet dowry demands does not establish cruelty under Section 498-A, nor does it support a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal by one Showkat Ahmad Rather arises out of an order/judgment dated 26th November, 2013 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Bandipora [“the trial Court”] in file No.159/Sessions titled State of J&K v. Showkat Ahmed Rather as also an order dated 29.11.2013 passed therein, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 498- A RPC and Section 306 RPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5000/- in respect of Section 498-A RPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in respect of offence under Section 306 RPC. The sentences imposed are directed to run concurrently. The impugned order of sentence also provides that in default of payment of fine, the appellant would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

2. The appellant is husband of deceased Shaheena, who died under mysterious circumstances on 17th April, 2006. The Police Post, Hajin received an information from Hospital Hajin that a dead body was lying in the hospital. In the meanwhile, on the same day one Maqsood Ahmad Sofi, the brother of the deceased, moved a written complaint before the Police Post, Hajin alleging therein that the marriage of his sister, namely, Shaheena had taken place about a year and half ago with the appellant Showkat Ahmad Rather. The deceased was residing at her matrimonial home along with her husband. It was in the morning of 17th April, 2006, he received information from the Hospital Hajin that his sister was dead and lying in the said hospital unidentified. He along with other persons reached the Hospital Hajin and saw the dead body of his sister. It was also stated by him in the complaint that there was no body from her in-laws side present in the hospital and that the complainant had a suspicion about the cause and circumstances leading to the death of his sister.

3. Since the death was reported to have occurred under mysterious circumstances, as such, requisite entry was made by the police in daily diary and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The dead body was taken into possession and post-mortem was conducted. It came to light during the course of investigation that the deceased had died on 17th April,2006 due to consuming of some poisonous substance. The complainant Maqsood Ahmad Sofi filed yet another complaint raising allegation of harassment meted out to the deceased by her in-laws, which, as per the complainant, forced the deceased to end her life by committing suicide. On this FIR No.73/2006 under Section 498-A & 306 RPC was lodged. The investigating agency completed the investigation and concluded that the deceased had died due to consuming of poison and, therefore, the appellant was prima facie guilty of offence under Sections 306 and 498-A RPC. The police presented the charge-sheet/final report before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sumbal, who committed the same to the trial Court.

4. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court vide judgment of conviction impugned in this appeal, convicted the appellant on both counts and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fine, as indicated herein above.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of the trial Court, it is seen that with a view to bringing home the charge against the appellant the prosecution examined PW- Maqsood Ahmad Sofi, PW-2 Mohammad Maqbool, PW-3 Arshid Abdullah, PW-4 Jaffar Mohammad, PW-5 Mst. Sara, PW-7 Mst. Misra, PW-8 Mst. Naseena and PW-12 Dr. Manzoor Ahmad.

6. PW-1 Maqsood Ahmad Sofi, who is also complainant in this case, has, in his deposition, stated that the deceased was living in her matrimonial home in a cordial atmosphere. However, when deceased would visit her parental home she would complain against the appellant and his parents regarding demand of dowry by them. He further deposed that he came to know about death of his sister when h