Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ujagar Singh, J.
Jagdish Chander
Versus
State Of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. 475-SB of 1985,
Decided On : OCTOBER 29, 1987
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 306, 498A IPC AND SECTION 113A OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - FACT OF SUICIDE BY THE DECEASED - NO EVIDENCE OF ABETMENT BY THE APPELLANT - CONVICTION UNDER SECTION 306 IPC SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Mst. Savitri Devi, was married to the appellant in 1980. After four years of marriage, she was brought to the Civil Hospital Rohtak with severe burn injuries and succumbed to her injuries the same day. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had set her on fire due to dowry harassment. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that the deceased had committed suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC, relying on the newly added Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which presumes abetment of suicide by a married woman if she commits suicide within seven years of marriage and her husband or his relatives have subjected her to cruelty. However, the High Court found that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant under Section 306 IPC as there was no evidence of cruelty on the part of the appellant towards the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant was guilty of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC? 2. Whether the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could be raised in the absence of cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had abetted the suicide of the deceased. There was no evidence of any instigation or incitement by the appellant that led to the deceased's suicide. 2. The court held that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could not be raised in the absence of cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC. The court noted that the trial court had rejected the prosecution's application to frame an additional charge under Section 498A IPC, and that order had become final and was not challenged by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC, and acquitted the appellant.
1. As per prosecution evidence, Mst. Savitri Devi (deceased) was married to the appellant in the year 1980. After about four years of this marriage, she was brought to Civil Hospital Rohtak at about 2.30 a.m. on 31st July, 1984 and a ruqa Ex. PK was sent by the doctor at 3.30 a.m. to the In charge, Police Post, Medical College, Rohtak. At about 7.10 a.m. the same day, she succumbed to her injuries and another ruqa Ex. PL was sent by the doctor to the said Police Post. During enquiry, no cognizable case was made out and the proceedings were almost dropped. On 3rd Aug., 1984, statement of Kashmiri Lal, son of Aru Singh Arora, resident of 280, Ward No. 12, Mohalla Kassiwala, Hissar, was recorded and the same is Ex. PE. According to this statement the prosecution story was that Kashmiri Lal had three brothers, the eldest of them being Nand Kishore, the one younger to him was Bhagwan Dass and the next was Hukam Chand. Kashmiri Lal was the youngest. Mst. Savitri Devi, aged about 21 years, was the younger sister of Kashmiri Lal. After her marriage to the appellant, a daughter was born to them and was about three years of age at the time of occurrence. Mst. Savitri Devi was pregnant for the last about 6/7 months. The appellant used to take liquor daily and harass her and give her beatings. She complained to Kashmiri Lal and his brothers about this several times and they tried to prevail upon the appellant and his father but all in vain. On 31st July, 1984. Nebh Raj, nephew of Kashmiri Lal, gave information to Kashmiri Lal and others at Hissar whereupon all the four brothers reached Rohtak. It was also learnt that Savitri Devi was being harassed on account of inadequate dowry. On reaching Rohtak, the four brothers came to know that Smt. Savitri Devi had been set on fire and the appellant misbehaved with them. It was also revealed that she did not herself put her on fire but had been burnt. This statement was got recorded and heard by Kashmiri Lal who signed it in Hindi after admitting its correctness. It was further said in this statement that uptill then, Kashmiri Lal remained busy verifying the facts or details of the incident. This statement is Ex. PE and the same was sent for registration of a case to the police station and a case was registered u/s. 306, I.P.C. Thereafter, the investigation was started and after its completion, challan was put in and the appellant committed for trial before the Sessions Court.
2. The trial Court framed charge u/s.302, IPC, against the appellant and during the trial as many as 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
3. P. W. 1 Dr. D. K. Sharma conducted the post-mortem examination and observed as under :-
"There were burns from scalp to the toes. Scalp hair, auxiliary, pubic hair were all burnt. The subcutaneous tissue was exposed. Peeling of the skin at places over the body was there, with hundred per cent burns at places. They were deep burns."
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and toxaemia as a result of burns which were all ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The witness further stated that it was a case of 100 per cent burns and there was a smell of kerosene oil. According to P.W. 11 Dr. Subodh Kumar, Mst. Savitri Devi was brought in the Casualty Ward of the hospital by the appellant on 31st July, 1984, at 2.40 a.m. and she was examined at 2.45 a.m. She was found to be semi-conscious, delirous, not answering to any question, had unrecordable blood pressure, the pulse being not pulpable. He sent ruqas Ex PK and PL to the aforesaid Police Post. According to the witness further, the patient was smelling kerosene oil, as mentioned in the medico-legal report and she was not in a fit condition to make any statement as she was in a semi-concsious state. Ex. PM/1 is the endorsement made by this witness with respect thereto on police request Ex. PM.
4. The prosecution cited two eye-witnesses out of whom Ved Parkash was give
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
