Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3891
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J.
Satbir - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-S No. 4695-SB of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-07-2018
Ashwani Arora, Advocate, for the Appellant; Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC and the insufficiency of evidence in establishing the same.
Headnote:
Acquittal - Section 306 IPC - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of accused/respondents No. 2 to 6 from the charge framed under Section 306 IPC. The deceased's brother alleged that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment caused by his in-laws, who had filed a dowry case against him. The trial court acquitted the accused based on lack of evidence of abetment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the abetment under Section 306 IPC and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Issues: The issues raised included the sufficiency of evidence to prove abetment under Section 306 IPC and the comparison of the deceased's signature on the suicide note with his driving license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove that the contents of the suicide note were written in the deceased's handwriting and that the mere initiation of matrimonial litigation by the accused did not constitute abetment.
Final Decision: The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, upholding the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 04.09.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which the accused/respondents No. 2 to 6 were acquitted from the charge framed under Section 306 IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2013, on receiving a telephonic information in the police station regarding death of Jagbir son of Om Parkash, the police reached in the hospital and found the complainant/brother of the deceased present near the dead body and recorded his statement Ex. P-14. In the statement, it was alleged that they are four brothers and sisters and the complainant and Jagbir were living separately. Jagbir was married to Kavita Devi (one of the accused) in the year 2008 and there was a matrimonial dispute going between them as Kavita Devi had filed a dowry case against Jagbir, his brother and mother which is pending in Court. It was further stated that Kavita Devi was extending threat to his family and even on 18.04.2013, she had made a call to him and his brother who has committed suicide by taking poison due to harassment caused by his in-laws. On the basis of this statement, DDR No. 29 Ex. P-3 was recorded and subsequently, a formal FIR Ex. P-4 was registered. The police initiated the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 and a suicide note dated 18.04.2013 Ex. P-9 was recovered from the pocket of the deceased, vide recovery memo Ex. P-10. The complainant later on produced the driving licence of the deceased which was recovered, vide recovery memo Ex. P-13 and the same was sent to FSL for comparison with signature of the deceased on the suicide note.
3. Thereafter, the police completed the further investigation and the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted vide report Ex. P-8.
4. After completion of the investigation, the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C., 1973 was submitted and the trial Court framed the charge under Section 306 IPC, to which, the accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in evidence examined PW-1 Bhup Singh, who initially conducted the investigation, PW-2 Dr. Mahesh Kumar, who conducted the post-mortem, PW-3 SI Shish Ram, one of the Investigation Officers, PW-4 Satbir, complainant/brother of the deceased, PW-5 Rajender son of Pokhar Mal, witness of the locality, PW-6 ASI Om Parkash, PW-7 Constable Anand Parkash, PW-8 SI Subhash Chander, PW-9 SI Attar Singh, PW-10 Draftsman Dharmender Singh, PW-11 Constable Shamsher Singh, PW-12 SI/SHO Ajit Singh and PW-13 HC Vinod, with regard to the completion of the investigation and the documents presented before the trial Court. The prosecution also produced on record the report of the FSL Ex. P- 1, Chemical Examiner's report Ex. P-25 and Ex. P-26.
6. After completion of the evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 in which all the incriminating evidence, which have come up against them, were put to them. The accused persons denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded their false implication. No evidence was laid in defence.
7. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 04.09.2014, acquitted accused/respondents No. 2 to 6 from the charge framed against them. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced below:
"It is evident on record that Kavita had launched criminal proceedings against deceased and his family members including complainant of this case under Section 498-A of IPC. This is a legal remedy which is available with a lady who is facing torture from her husband and his companions. If legal remedy is carried on them it cannot amount to abet the person against whom such proceedings are pending to commit suicide. Kavita had been informed by the complainant on telephone when he was hearing the telephone coming from Kavita's side on which he informed Kavita that Jagbir had already consumed poison. It means before the starting of conversation of Kavita with the complainant on telephone Jagbir had alr
