Mere allegations of harassment without proximate actions leading to suicide do not constitute abetment under Section 306 RPC.

JUDGMENT :

01. The appellant – State (now UT) of Jammu & Kashmir has filed the above titled appeal against the judgment dated 30.11.2015 (in short, “impugned judgment”) passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) in Sessions Trial case No. 15 titled – “State vs Rakesh Kumar & Anr.” whereby the respondents - Rakesh Kumar and Harbans Lal as accused, had been acquitted of the charges under section 306 RPC, arising out of a case registered at Police Station, Budhal vide FIR No. 24/2009.

02. This appeal had been filed alongwith an application, seeking leave to file acquittal appeal. This Court vide interim order dated 12.04.2021, not only condoned the delay of 312 days in filing the appeal, but also granted leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment.

03. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court on the following grounds:-

(a) That the order of the Learned Trial Court is against the law and facts of the case, as such, deserves to be set aside.

(b) That there is sufficient material on record to convict the respondents but the learned Trial Judge has not appreciated the law and facts of the case which has resulted into acquittal of the respondents.

(c) That the prosecution had established the case against the respondents by adducing documentary, as well as, oral evidence which in ordinary course of nature is sufficient to guilt the respondents.

(d) That the respondents willfully and intentionally committed the crime for which he deserves to be punished.

(e) That the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its true and correct perspective. The important pieces of evidence have been ignored. The judgment is based on surmises and conjectures.

(f) That the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence. The conclusion drawn is against the weight of evidence. The occurrence is approved. The acquittal is bad in the eyes of law.

(g) That the Trial Court has taken hyper technical approach. The direct and circumstantial evidence have sufficiently proved the guilt of the respondents. The judgment on this count also is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.

04. The appellant – State has finally prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court in the case titled – “State vs Rakesh Kumar & Anr.” arising out of case registered vide FIR no. 24/2009 at Police Station, Budhal under section 306 RPC be set aside and the respondents/accused be convicted and punished under section 306 RPC in accordance with law.

05. The factual background of the case is that on 01.05.2009, Incharge Police Station, Budhal received an information telephonically from Incharge Manyarti Police Picket Khawas that a woman, namely, Sanjokta Kumari W/O Rakesh Sharma R/O Khawas Tehsil Budhal had consumed some poisonous medicines and that she had been referred to District Hospital, Rajouri for treatment by the local doctor.

06. Based on the aforesaid information, ASI Mohd. Rafiq proceeded towards Rajouri, however, en-route at Palma Rajouri, he found that the heirs of aforementioned Sanjokta Kumari had been taking back her dead body. The custody of the dead body was taken over by the police and taken to Kandi Hospital for postmortem, where her postmortem was conducted by the Medical Officer and after completing medico-legal formalities, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to her heirs for the last rites.

07. The police visited the place of occurrence and site plan was prepared. Since the deceased had died, under mysterious circumstances the inquest proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C were initiated. In the course of those proceedings, statements of the witnesses were recorded and police came to find that since marriage, the accused Rakesh Kumar and Harbans Lal i.e. husband and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively, started harassing the deceased to bring dowry and also used to give taunts to her for not bringing dowry