Prosecution must establish active participation in abetment to suicide and cruelty; vague allegations are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGEMENT

1. The present appeal has been directed against judgment dated 18.12.2023 passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu ["trial court" for short] in case titled "State v. Raj Kumar", vide which, respondent came to be acquitted.

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it would be apt to have an overview of the background facts leading to the present case.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 17.06.2007, complainant-PW-4 Hira Lal lodged a written report with Incharge Police Post, Hari Market, Jammu, alleging inter alia that his daughter Neha was married to respondent about 11/2 years back and that soon after the marriage, she was subjected to dowry harassment by the respondent and his family. It was stated by the complainant that in order to save the married life of his daughter, he used to fulfil dowry demands of the in-laws of his daughter, however, it did not satiate their greed and they kept on raising the demands. On 17.06.2007, he received a phone call from the respondent that condition of his daughter had deteriorated and she had been evacuated to Government Medical College, Jammu. The complainant and his family members rushed to the hospital and were shocked to see that blood was oozing out from the nose of his daughter. FIR No. 55/2007 for offences under sections 498-A/306 RPC came to be registered and investigation culminated into final report against the respondent for the aforesaid offences in terms of Section 173 CrPC. It is pertinent to mention that offences against family members of the respondent were not made out and they were given benefit of Section 169 CrPC.

4. Respondent was charged by the trial court for the aforesaid offences, whereby he pleaded innocence and claimed trial, which prompted the trial court to ask the prosecution evidence and prosecution examined all the witnesses.

5. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused in terms of Section 342 CrPC came to be recorded, whereby he denied the incriminating evidence against him and did not prefer to enter the defence.

6. Learned trial court, having examined, analyzed and marshalled the prosecution evidence, has acquitted the respondent primarily on the ground that prosecution has failed to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.

7. The appellant-State has questioned the impugned judgment, primarily, on the ground that learned trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective and prosecution has succeeded to establish guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable shadow of doubt.

8. Having heard rival contentions of the parties and perused the impugned judgment, I concur with the findings recorded therein.

9. As factual narration of the case would unfurl, respondent was married to the deceased for about 1½ years. Allegation of the prosecution is that deceased was subjected to dowry harassment and frequent demands of dowry made by the respondent and his family drove the deceased to hang herself with the ceiling fan and commit suicide. The prosecution in order to establish guilt of the respondent, besides parents, brother and sister of the deceased has examined independent witnesses, namely, PW-1 Sumit Gupta, PW-6 Ashish Gupta, PW-7 Anil Gupta, PW-8 Gian Chand, PW-9 Koushal Mahajan and PW-10 Geeta Rani.

10. It is pertinent to underline at the outset that except parents, brother and sister of the deceased, all the independent prosecution witnesses have either turned hostile or have not supported the prosecution case on material aspects.

11. Respondent has been charged, inter alia, with the alleged commission of offence under section 306 RPC i.e. abetment to suicide. It reads as under:-

"Abetment of suicide

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine."

12. It is evident from a bare