IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
N.S. Shekhawat, J.
State of Haryana - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
Darshan Lal and another - Respondents - Respondent
CRA-S-1536-SB of 2007 (O&M)
Decided On : 22-03-2023
Abetment - Acquittal under Section 306/34 IPC - Section 107, 306 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The State of Haryana appealed the acquittal of the respondents charged under Section 306/34 IPC for abetting the suicide of Parveen Kumari. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed for dowry and ultimately committed suicide due to the torture by her in-laws and husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution witnesses' vague and general allegations against the respondents did not withstand cross-examination. The court emphasized that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The appeal by the State of Haryana was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was upheld and affirmed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased by harassing her for dowry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the mens rea to commit the offence is essential to convict a person under Section 306 IPC. It was held that vague and general allegations, without concrete or conclusive evidence, could not prove the complicity of the in-laws and husband in the commission of the crime.
Final Decision: The appeal by the State of Haryana was dismissed, and the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was upheld and affirmed.
N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.
1. Challenging the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. III, Faridabad, whereby, the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 306/34 IPC, the State of Haryana has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. The learned trial Court held that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the guilt of the respondents/accused up to the hilt and by extending them benefit of doubt, they were ordered to be acquitted. The said findings have been assailed by the prosecution on various grounds by preferring the instant appeal.
2. Shorn of unnecessary detail, the facts, which would be necessary for the effective adjudication of the present case are that the prosecution was launched in the instant case on the basis of complaint made by Sunder Dass, father of Parveen Kumari (since deceased). He, inter-alia, stated that he was a doctor and had two sons and two daughters. As per him, the marriage of his eldest daughter Parveen Kumari (since deceased) was solemnized with Dr. Darshan Lal Makkar, respondent No. 1/accused in the year 1984 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and at that time age of Parveen Kumari (since deceased) was 41 years. Even though, he had given dowry beyond his capacity, still after seven days of marriage, his daughter Parveen Kumari came with respondent No. 1 to meet him and told that respondent No. 1 wanted to divorce her. After advice, he sent both of them back to her matrimonial home. It was further alleged that whenever Parveen Kumari (since deceased) came to Faridabad, she always complained that she was being harassed by her husband Darshan Lal Makkar, father-in-law Madan Lal, mother-in-law Vidya Rani and brothers-in-law, namely, Surinder Kumar and Harish Kumar. They were forcing her to bring more dowry from her parents. On her refusal, she was beaten up by Darshan Lal and she disclosed the said facts to the complainant in the presence of his eldest son and wife. They pacified Parveen Kumari (since deceased) and after giving her Rs.5000/-, she was sent back to her husband. Even three years back, his son Gulshan Kumar and Ram Nath brother-in-law had visited her and she had told that respondent No. 1 had kept another lady Pushpa Sharma. She was beaten up by Darshan Lal respondent No. 1, when she raised the protest. Even she made complaints to her parents-in-law and brothers-in-law and they also maltreated her. About one week ago, the complainant, his wife and son Gulshan Kumar had visited Parveen Kumari (since deceased) and she had informed that the respondent No. 1 and his family members were harassing her. They had raised a demand of Rs. 3 lacs for installing a fake drugs factory. The respondent No. 1 had threatened that in case the money was not paid within a period of four days, they would put end to the life of Parveen Kumari (since deceased). While leaving, they all gave Rs.1500/- to Parveen Kumari (since deceased). At about 02.00 p.m. on 09.07.2002, maternal uncle Darshan Lal, respondent No. 1 told them that Parveen Kumari had passed away and on hearing this, he alongwith his other family members came to Faridabad. Parveen Kumari (since deceased) had committed suicide due to torture by parents-in-law, brothers-in-law and the husband and she had consumed poisonous substance to put an end to her life. With these broad allegations, the FIR in the instant case was got registered by PW2 Sunder Dass father of Parveen Kumari (since deceased).
3. In support of the charge under Section 306/34 IPC, the prosecution examined PW1 Constable Rajesh Kumar, PW2 Sunder Dass, PW3 Ram Nath Juneja, PW4 Sunita, PW5 Gulshan, PW6 ASI Vinod Kumar, PW7 ASI Ram Kishan, PW8 Constable Daya Nand, PW9 Constable Ombir Singh, PW11 ASI Ajeet Singh and PW12 Draftsman Ashok Kumar and, thereafter, the learned public prosecutor made statement and closed the evidence.
4. When the incriminati
The mens rea to commit the offence is essential to convict a person under Section 306 IPC.
Cruelty and abetment of suicide – Mere fact of commission of suicide by itself would not be sufficient for Court to raise presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act, and to hold accused guilty of....
Abetment under Section 306 IPC requires evidence of direct instigation and established mens rea; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction.
For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or aiding that compels suicide, which was not established in this case.
Mere allegations of harassment without proximate actions leading to suicide do not constitute abetment under Section 306 RPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.