The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh (Jammu Bench) ruled that an accusation that the deceased had committed suicide because of the occasional taunts regarding her incapacity to bear a child, though distressing, cannot by itself attract the ingredients of Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The Court asserted that a woman expects dignity and respect in her matrimonial home; yet, what Section 306 contemplates is intentional instigation or persistent cruelty of such nature as to drive a person to end her life. Domestic discords and differences are common in marital relationships, and the inability to conceive may receive different reactions from individuals, based on their emotional stress.
It often happens that temporary disputes or misunderstandings make a spouse feel uncomfortable within the matrimonial setting; however, the Court emphasised that an ordinary, prudent person would not be expected to take an extreme step merely on that account of taunt.
As Section 107 RPC lays down that to constitute the offence of abetment, there must be intentional and active participation by the abettor in the commission of the act, and in view of the nature of the evidence adduced at trial, the High Court held that the present case does not qualify as one warranting conviction under Section 306 RPC.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar found that there was neither any credible material to suggest a demand for dowry by the respondents, nor was the deceased subjected to cruelty or harassment with a view to coercing her to meet such a demand.
The evidence merely establishes that the first respondent (husband) was a habitual consumer of liquor; however, his being a drunkard by itself cannot lead to the presumption that such a habit rendered the life of the deceased miserable or drove her to take the extreme step, added the Bench, while explaining that while consumption of liquor is undoubtedly an undesirable habit, its implications cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence of abetment to suicide.
The Bench also discarded the allegation that the failure of the deceased to conceive a child, even after five years of marriage, subjected her to taunts and harassment by the respondents, as scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not reveal even an iota of evidence to substantiate such an allegation.
The Bench also pointed out that the allegation regarding the deceased being taunted for her inability to bear a child does not find corroboration from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which are marred by improvements and embellishments, nor has the prosecution established that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment on account of any demand of dowry.
The Bench also pointed out that in the case of an acquittal, a “double presumption” operates in favour of the accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, and secondly, the reinforcement of that presumption by virtue of the acquittal rendered by a competent court. It is equally well settled that if two reasonable views are possible based on the evidence available on record, the appellate court should refrain from disturbing the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.
The Bench, therefore, dismissed the appeal, observing that the Trial Court had meticulously examined the material on record and arrived at a just and proper conclusion in acquitting the respondents, in which no perversity or infirmity is shown to appear.
Briefly, the father of the deceased lodged a written report at Jhajjar Police Station alleging that his daughter (now deceased after five years of marriage) had committed suicide because of being subjected to continuous harassment and taunts by her husband and in-laws for her inability to conceive. Based on the said report, an FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).
The Trial Court held that there was no legal evidence connecting the respondents with the commission of the crime, and observed that the statements of the in-laws merely reveal sporadic instances of matrimonial discord which are not uncommon in domestic life. The Court concluded that mere harassment or quarrels in the family, per se, do not constitute abetment to suicide as envisaged under Sections 306 and 107 RPC, and therefore, acquitted all the accused of the charges.
Appearances:
AAG Ravinder Gupta, for the Appellant
Advocate G. S. Thakur, for the Respondent
