GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 23. 4. 2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 9/2000 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC and sentenced him to under go five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 12. 10. 1999 at about 4. 45 PM, PW 1 Hardayal lodged a written report Ex. P/1 before PW 10 Pramod Swami, who was at the relevant time SHO Police Station Rawla District Sri Ganganagar stating inter-alia that his daughter Shanti (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married with the accused appellant 10-12 years back and this wedlock produced four children. It was further stated in the report that in between the night of 11. 10. 1999 and 12. 10. 1999, her in-laws' consisting of Harlal, father-in-law of deceased, wife of Harlal & Mother-in-law of deceased, accused appellant Ram Singh, husband of deceased, Ram Chandra, another son of Harlal and their one daughter hanged the deceased and he had received the information at about 9. 00 AM on 12. 10. 1999. It was further stated in the report that previous to that incident, injustice was being done to his daughter deceased and in this respect, a Panchayat was also called for an there was a demand of fridge & motor-cycle from her in-laws' and they used to tell that these articles be given otherwise they would kill his daughter (deceased) and that is why, they killed his daughter (deceased ). On this report, the police registered the case for the offence under Sec. 302 and 147 IPC and chalked out regular FIR Ex. P/2 and started investigation. During investigation, the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by PW 9 Dr. Narendra Singh and the post mortem report is Ex. P/13. THE accused appellant was arrested through arrest memo Ex. P/20 on 16. 11. 1999. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan against the accused appellant only for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC in the Court of Magistrate, from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 22. 8. 2000, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh framed charge for the offence under Sec. 306 IPC against the accused appellant. THE charge was read over and explained to the accused appellant. THE accused appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited several documents. THErefore, statement of the accused appellant under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. was recorded. In defence, no evidence was led by the accused appellant. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh through his judgment and order dated 23. 4. 2001 convicted the accused appellant for the offence u/s. 306 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter- alia:- 1. That there was a constant demand of motor-cycle, cooler and fridge by the accused appellant and for that deceased was being tortured and harassed by the accused appellant. 2. That deceased died in the abnormal circumstances in the house of the accused appellant for which no jurisdiction was rendered by the accused appellant and thus, accused appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. 3. That the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused appellant for the offence u/sec. 306 IPC. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 23. 4. 2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. In this appeal, the following submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant:- 1. That in the present case, there is no evidence of instigation or abetment on the part of the accused appellant. 2. That there is also no evidence that deceased was subjected to harassment for and in connection with the demand of dowry which has resulted in committing suicide by deceased. 3. That there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 4. That dispute of Battal, which arose 5-6 years back from the date of fateful incident, was between deceased and her Devar and not with the present accused appellant. Therefore, from that dispute, to say that accused appellant abetted the commission of suicide by deceased, is wrong. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charge framed against him. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Anupgarh. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case. To prove the charge of the offence under section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following two facts:- 1. The commission of suicide by a person; and 2. The accused abetted the commission thereof. Point No. 1
(3.) TO prove the first point, the medical evidence has to be looked into, which is found in the statement of PW 9 Dr. Narendra Singh. Pw 9 Dr. Narendra Singh states in his statement that on 12. 10. 1999 he was working as Medical Officer in the Government Hospital 365 R. D. , Sri Ganganagar and on that day, he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and he found only one ligature mark on the neck, situated at upper portion of neck, just below chin, 11" long started left side of neck upto right side absent on back of neck. He has further stated that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to hanging means antimortem hanging and there was no signs of violence or poisoning. He has proved the post mortem report Ex. P/13. Thus, from the statement of Pw9 Dr. Narendra Singh, the fact that death of the deceased was unnatural one is well proved. ;