Conviction under Section 306 requires proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement by the accused, proximate to the suicide, demonstrating a clear mens rea to abet the act. Mere harassment or matrimonial discord, without evidence of positive, compelling conduct, is insufficient for criminal liability.

State of Himachal Pradesh, being the appellant, has come up in the instant appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assailing the judgment dated 16.11.2013 [referred to as the “Impugned Judgement”] passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala [HP], in Sessions Case No.8-B/VII/13, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Surender Pal, whereby respondent was acquitted of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

PROSECUTION STORY:

2. Case of the prosecution is that Kashmir Singh submitted a complaint that he was working as a barber in Sanjauli [Shimla] and his daughter Bhatehri Devi @ Vasu was married to respondent Surender Pal about 1½ years back. She used to stay with the respondent-accused and her parents in-law at village Trehal, Post Office Baijnath, District Kangra in same house. Complainant-Kashmir Singh has given a mobile phone to her daughter. It is averred that about three months ago her daughter had informed the complainant that the respondent-accused Surender Pal gave beatings to her and in view of this, he had sent her wife, Gulabo Devi, to the house of the respondent-accused. It is the case of the prosecution, that on 22.08.2012 her daughter Bhatehri Devi informed the complainant that the respondent-accused had given beatings and threatened to kill her and on this, the complainant told her daughter that he would come home after 10-15 days and will make the respondent-accused to understand the things. It is averred that on 23.08.2012, the complainant-father received a phone from Shri Chand Ram at 9.15 p.m stating that her daughter Bhatehri Devi @ Vasu was ill and he should come soon. On 24.08.2012 he reached Baijnath and came to know that his daughter Bhatehri Devi @ Vasu has already died on previous day i.e. at 6.30 p.m. It is averred that his daughter was pregnant and due to the beatings given by respondent-accused and on account of cruelty and beatings she had her life by consuming poison. Based on this, FIR No 108 of 2012 was registered at Police Station Baijnath on 24.08.2012 at 13.05 hours.

TRIAL LEADING TO ACQUITTAL:

2. Upon registration of FIR, the matter was investigated by ASI Purshottam Ram, who completed the codal formalities, took photographs and requested Sub Divisional Hospital Baijnath for postmortem. The spot map was prepared and the house was searched by Police. During investigation, statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were recorded. After completion of investigation, the challan was put up in the Court and on commencement of trial, the charge was framed by Learned Trial Court for offences under Section 306 and 498A IPC against the respondent-accused on 14.10.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty. During the trial, prosecution examined 15 witnesses and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he pleaded himself to be innocent. Upon conclusion of the trial, Learned Trial Court acquitted the Respondent-Surender Pal, on 16.11.2013, in terms of Impugned Judgement.

CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT:

3. Appellant-State has assailed the Impugned Judgement dated 16.11.2013, on the ground, that the Impugned Judgement was passed by Learned Trial Court, ignoring the facts as well as law; and Impugned Judgement was based on hypothetical reason and conjectures and surmises; and Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and has discarding the reasons and the sound