IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUMEET GOEL, J.
Ram Nath Chadha - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
CRA-AS No. 5 of 2016
Decided On : 18-11-2024
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.:- Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, whereby respondent No.2 (herein) was acquitted from the charge under Section 306 of the IPC by granting him the benefit of doubt.
2. In the present appeal, the pertinent facts for adjudication are that the FIR No.09, dated 15.03.2014, was lodged against the accused- respondent No. 2, namely Davinder Singh S/o Kartar Singh, resident of village Chak Bhariyan, Tehsil and District Pathankot, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity the ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sadar, Pathankot. The matter proceeded to trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot, which concluded its proceedings and, vide judgment dated 31.07.2015, acquitted the accused (respondent No.2 herein) of all the charges. The Court below held that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not meet the necessary standards laid-down under Section 306 of the IPC. Given the insufficiency of credible evidence, there is significant doubt regarding the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence & hence he ought to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.
3. The appellant, aggrieved by the findings of the Court below, has now invoked the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, seeking re-examination of the findings as the same are based on alleged mis- appreciation of evidence and procedural irregularities. However, it is well- settled law that the scope in appeal is limited and does not entail a re- appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.
4. In brief, the case of the prosecution, as detailed in the FIR, is that on 11.03.2014, Smt. Kamlesh Chadha (PW-2), mother of the deceased- Bhawna, submitted a complaint (Ex.P-6) to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pathankot, requesting the registration of a case under Sections 302 and 306 of IPC against the husband of the deceased namely Davinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein), his parents Kanta Devi and Kartar Singh, his brother Nardev Rana and his sister-in-law Shubh Kumari. She alleged that her daughter was harassed by her in-laws, and her father-in-law had made inappropriate advances. Despite complaints of the deceased-Bhawna, her husband and her mother-in-law were unresponsive, compelling her to file a domestic violence case, which was dismissed due to the death of the advocate. A handwritten note from the deceased Bhawna described the mental and physical abuse she endured. On 04.02.2014, the deceased suffered severe burns and while hospitalized, the Judicial Magistrate could not record her statement due to her critical condition. Deceased-Bhawna succumbed to the burn injuries on 07.02.2014. The complainant alleged that her daughter was burned by her husband and in-laws but police did not record her statement as the deceased was still alive. Furthermore, on 15.03.2014, SI Raj Kumar (PW-13) received DDR entry no.18 (EX.PW- 7/G) and led an inquiry, where it emerged that Davinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein) frequently beat deceased-Bhawna, leading her to set herself on fire after an arguments. A formal FIR under Section 306 of the IPC was filed against the accused Davinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein). SI Raj Kumar (PW-13) continued investigation and continued collecting evidence from the house of the accused Davinder Singh (respondent No.2 herein), including burned items and photographs and documented the site. On 02.04.2014, the mother of the deceased i.e. complainant later moved an application dated 28.03.2014 (EX.P-5) before the SSP, Pathankot requesting for reinvestigation and seeking to add parents of respondent No.2-Davinder Singh and his brother as co-accused, but after further/detailed inquiry, these family members were found to be uninvolved. The investigation concluded with accused Davinder Singh being charged with abetting suicide of deceased Bh
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others versus State of Karnataka
To convict under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or encouragement leading to suicide is required; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so results in acquittal.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions directly abetted the suicide, with evidence of cruelty being essential for conviction under IPC Sections 498-A and 306.
Mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for conviction under Section 306 IPC; the prosecution must prove intentional abetment, with clear evidence linking the accused's conduct to the victim'....
Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires proof of direct instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid in suicide; generalized harassment allegations without proximate acts inciting suicide are insuff....
In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence is paramount, and the appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or perverse.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide without clear evidence of instigation.
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.