GARG, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment and order dated 27. 7. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No1, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 32/86, by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI.
(2.) BY the same judgment, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar acquitted another accused Saraswati and Kanta of the charges for the offence under Sections 306 and 498a IPC and also acquitted present accused appellant of the charge for the offence under Section 498a IPC. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:- On 10. 2. 1986, PW-1 Jai Narain lodged an oral report Ex. P/1 with the Police Station Kotwali Sri Ganganagar stating inter alia that his daughter Bimla (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) aged about 18 years was married two years back with the accused appellant Surendra Kumar and in the marriage, as per his capacity, he gave articles in dowry, but the accused appellant and other accused persons were not happy and they used to demand more articles in dowry and they also demanded double bed and the same was given by him. But, in spite of that, the accused appellant and other accused persons used to harass and torture deceased for not bringing sufficient dowry and deceased also used to make complaint for that to him and her mother PW-8 Khajani, but he and PW-8 Khajani always tried to make deceased understand so that peaceful life between deceased and her husband accused appellant might pass. It was further stated in the report that on 29. 05. 1985 when there was marriage of his son Maniram, the accused appellant came to his house to attend the marriage and for some incident, the accused appellant beat deceased, but she was saved by Kedarnath (PW3), Devi Chand (PW2) and Preetam and the accused appellant also threatened for dire consequences. However, later on, the accused appellant was persuaded the deceased was sent with him. It was further stated in the report that deceased was not so much literate lady and the accused appellant and other accused persons used to torture and harass her. It was further stated in the report that a day before the lodging of the report, he came to know from police that deceased had died and, thereafter, he came to Sri Ganganagar and he came to the conclusion that either deceased was killed by the accused persons or she committed suicide because of torture and harassment by the accused persons. On this report, police registered the case and started investigation. During investigation, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted by the Medical Board and the post mortem report is Ex. P/21, where the Medical Board opined that the cause of death of the deceased was suffocation due to extensive burns over the body and shock also. The accused appellant was arrested through arrest memo Ex. P/24. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused appellant and two more accused in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. On 19. 7. 1986, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar framed charges for the offence under Sections 306 and 498a IPC against the accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded. In defence, one witness was produced by the accused persons. After conclusion of trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar through his judgment and order dated 27. 7. 1987 acquitted the accused Saraswati and Kanta of the charges for the offence under Sections 306 and 498a IPC and also acquitted accused appellant of the charge for the offence under Section 498a IPC, but convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above holding inter-alia:- 1. That learned trial Judge found the case of suicide on the basis of suicidal note Ex. D/3. 2. That after analysing the evidence of witnesses, namely, PW1 Jai Narain, PW2 Devi Chand, PW3 Kedarnath, PW5 Preetam, PW6 Raghuveer Sharan and PW7 Kasmirilal, learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case that deceased was being tortured and harassed by the accused appellant and other accused for not bringing sufficient dowry. 3. That statement of PW-11 Ramjilal, IO that it was a case of dowry demand on the part of accused persons was not found reliable by the learned trial Judge as that fact was not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses including the father and mother of the deceased, namely, PW1 Jai Narain and PW8 Khajani respectively. 4. That learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that deceased committed suicide not because of torture and harassment by the accused persons on account of dowry demand. 5. That learned trial Judged placed reliance on the suicidal note Ex. D/3 and placing reliance on it alone, he came to the conclusion that the wordings of suicidal note Ex. D/3 are sufficient to make out a case of abatement only against the present accused appellant and thus, he convicted the accused appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC on the basis of that suicidal note Ex. D/3 and acquitted rest accused persons of the charges framed against them. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 27. 7. 1987 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellant. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant has made the following submissions:- (1) That from the suicidal note Ex. D/3, no case of abatement can be said to have been made out against the accused appellant, as the suicidal note Ex. D/3 merely states that she has committed suicide with heavy heart and since her mother-in-law, namely, Saraswati had a doubt upon her, therefore, she committed suicide. In these circumstances, the contents of he suicidal note Ex. D/3 are not sufficient to make out a case of abatement against the accused appellant, especially when Saraswati had been acquitted of the charge under Section 306 IPC. (2) That when the basic case of dowry demand was not found proved by the learned trial Judge, therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant for the offence under Section 306 IPC only on the basis of suicidal note Ex. D/3 cannot be sustained and thus, the findings of conviction for the said offence recorded by the learned trial Judge against the accused appellant are erroneous one and they should be set aside. Hence, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No1. , Sri Ganganagar be set aside and the accused appellant be acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 306 IPC also. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.
(3.) 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. So far as the fact that deceased committed suicide is not in dispute in the present case and for that reliance was placed by the learned trial Judge on suicidal note Ex. D/3. Thus, from the suicidal note Ex. D/3, it is well proved that deceased committed suicide by burning her body and the fact that she died because of burns is well proved by the statement of PW9 Dr. R. K. Gupta and for that post mortem report Ex. P/21 may be referred to, where it was opined that cause of death of the deceased was suffocation due to extensive burns over the body. Hence, it can be said that death of the deceased was unnatural one in the shape of suicide. ;