Manna vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

Smt. Manna appellant along with her son Suresh Kumar accused was brought to trial for the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, before the Court of Session at Narnaul. Suresh Kumar was, however, acquitted of the charge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, convicted Smt. Manna under Section 306, Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to two years; rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. She has challenged her conviction and sentence in this appeal.

The prosecution case as unfold in the First Information Report and the evidence is that Sushila deceased, daughter of Birakh Bhan was married to Suresh Kumar of village Satnali. It is said that on 9th March, 1984 at about 11 a.m. Suresh Kumar went to Police Station, Satnali and made a statement which was recorded in the Daily Diary Register that at about 9 a.m., his wife Sushila had gone to take water from the Bakhtarwala well and she fell into that well and that this incident was seen by Amar Singh Thakur. The dead body of Sushila was taken out from the well. On receipt of this report, Sub Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar went to the said well, held inquest and sent the dead body of Sushila to the mortuary for autopsy. Dr. R.S. Chohan conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sushila on 9th March, 1984 at 4.15 p.m. and found seven injuries on her body as detailed in the post mortem report Ex.PC. Death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries to the lung, spleen and liver. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be instantaneous and between death and post mortem within 24 hours.

It emerges from the evidence on record that on 28th March, 1984, Kanshi Parshad a cousin brother of Sushila made an application before the Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, alleging therein that his sister Sushila was married to Suresh Kumar and they performed her marriage by spending about Rs. 40,000/ on it and after the marriage whenever Sushila visited her parental house, she, was telling them that her inlaws used to taunt her for brining less dowry and they also used to threaten her that in case she did not bring more money like the wives of their two other sons, she would be deserted. It was further alleged in the application that the inlaws of Sushila did not send her to her parents for eight months and then her father Birakh Bhan went to the house of inlaws of Sushila to bring her but they did not allow her to leave their house. On 7th March, 1984, the younger sister of Kanshi Parshad went to the inlaws of Sushila to bring her but she was not allowed to leave their house. The sister of Kanshi Parshad then reported back that Sushila started weeping on seeing her. It was mentioned in the application that on 15th March, 1984, some persons belonging to their village informed the parents of Sushila that on the night of 8th March, 1984, she was murdered and thrown in the well. On receipt of this information, the complainant party went to Satnali and the motherinlaw of Sushila stated that they had done whatever they liked and that they (complainant party) may do whatever they liked. The application filed by Kanshi Parshad was forwarded to Sub Inspector Gurdev Singh for investigation and he submitted his report to the Senior Superintendent of Police wherein he reported that Sushila had committed suicide by jumping into the well because of the illtreatment given by her inlaw and that a case under Section 306 Indian Penal Code was made out. On receipt of the said report, formal FIR Ex. PG was recorded in the Police Station, Gurdev Singh Sub Inspector obtained the copy of the inquest report and the postmortem report of Sushila from Sub Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar. He also prepared the visual plan Ex.PL of the place of occurrence and arrested the accused. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed.

The prosecution in order to establish its case examined the following witnesses.

Dr. R.S. Chohan PW1 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sushila. Randhir Singh PW2 recorded daily diary report No. 9 on 9th March, 1984 at 11 a.m. at the instance of Suresh Kumar accused. Sub Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar PW3 recorded the FIR Ex.PG on the basis of a complaint Ex.PF forwarded by Inspector Gurdev Singh. Makhan Lal PW4 identified the dead body of Sushila deceased before the police and the doctor on 9th March, 1984. Kanshi Parshad PW5, who being a cousin of the deceased made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PG was recorded at the Police Station. Smt. Bimla PW6 deposed that he along with Sunita went to the house of Sushila deceased to bring her back but the accused refused to send her, Kumari Sunita PW7 deposed to have accompanied Bimla to the house of the deceased. Birkh Bhau PW8 deposed that the accused used to maltreat the deceased for bringing inadequate dowry and that he was informed by somebody that his daughter Sushila deceased had died by jumping into a well. Smt. Savitri Devi PW9 reiterated the version given by her husband Brikh Bhan. Smt. Badamo PW10 deposed that the accused used to harass Sushila deceased for bringing less dowry. Birbal PW13 deposed that Manna accused had confessed her guilt of having killed Sushila and cremated her dead body. Inspector Gurdev Singh PW14 investigated the case on the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Narnaul. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implicating in the case, Suresh Kumar accused, however, gave his version in the following terms :

"On 9.3.1984 at about 9.00 a.m. my wife Smt. Sushila, since deceased, had gone to draw water from the well known as Bakhtawarwala but after some time Amar Singh s/o Mehtab came to our house and informed us that my wife while drawing water, accidentally fell in the well. Thereupon, I rushed to the well. Many persons collected there. She was taken out of the well. I immediately informed the police, made a report. I also sent information to my inlaws. They also came and cremation was done in their presence. After some time they demanded the return of gifts presented at the marriage time. On my refusal to do so, they later on connived with the police and got registered this false case with the intention to pressurise me for parting with the article."

Smt. Manna adopted the version given by Suresh Kumar accused and examined Amar Singh in supported of the said version.

Mr. R.S. Bindra, learned Counsel for the appellant has canvassed before me that the evidence on the record even if accepted at it face value makes out no offence against the appellant. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the requisite ingredients of offence of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code have not been established against her by the prosecution. Elaborating the submission, it has been stressed that the appellant was neither guilty of investigation nor of aiding in the commission of crime either by any act or by an illegal omission as envisaged by the provisions of Section 107, Indian Penal Code.

There appears to be merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant. Section 107, Indian Penal Code is in the following terms :

"107. A person abets the doing of a thing who

First Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly Intentional aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."

A reading of this Section shows that a person abets the doing of a thing who instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; it an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or intentionally, aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. ExplanationI to that section shows that a person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily cause or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done is said instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2 to the Section shows that whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does not anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

The evidence relied upon by the learned trial Judge in convicting the appellant is of Kanshi Parshad PW5 the complainant. Smt. Bimla PW6, Kumari Sunita PW7, Badamo PW10 and that Brikh Bhan PW8 and Smt. Savitri Devi PW9 father and mother of the deceased respectively. Most of this evidence is to the effect that the relations between the deceased and the appellant were not happy and than the appellant used to maltreat her at times and threaten her that in case she did not bring more money from her parents, she would be deserted. But the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses is full of infirmities. Even if it may be assumed that the relations were startled between the appellant and the deceased because she brought less dowry or that she was given threats of desertion by the appellant, then also it is not sare to convict the appellant for the offence of abetment under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant, in any manner, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. There is also nothing on that the record to show that she entered into conspiracy with another person so that the deceased may commit suicide. I, therefore, find that there is no legal evidence at all to support the conviction of the appellant.

The learned Counsel for the State is unable to satisfy me that there was any dependable evidence in regard to the actual abetment by the appellant for the deceased to commit suicide. On the other hand, there are certain important innate circumstances which completely destroy the theory of abetment to commit suicide. In the first place it appears that on 9th March, 1984 at about 11 a.m. Suresh Kumar accused (since acquitted) went to the Police Station Sadar, Satnali and made a statement which was recorded in the Daily Diary Register that on that day at about 9 a.m., his wife Sushila went to take water from the Bakhtarwala well and she slipped into the well and Amar Singh Thakur (DW) saw her falling in the well. The Sub Inspector Rajeshwar Kumar who investigated the case found that a bucket along with a rope was lying on the chabutra of the well. After holding inquest on the dead body of Sushila deceased, this Investigated Officer came to the conclusion that it was an accidental death. This accidental slip of the deceased into the well also finds support from the testimony of Amar Singh Thakur DW1 who categorically stated that immediately after this incident, he reported the matter to Suresh Kumar husband of the deceased. The conduct of the appellant and Suresh Kumar accused was such which is inconsistent with the offence of abetment under Section 306, Indian Penal Code. The incident took place on 9th March, 1984 but the complaint was lodged by Kanshi Parshad a cousin brother of the deceased after about a month of the alleged incident. It is said that this was done because the father of the deceased was out of station for 15 days. But no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution as to why the complaint was not lodged immediately after his arrival in his village. In these circumstances I have serious doubt about the truth of the statement made by the prosecution witnesses regarding the maltreatment of the deceased by the appellant. I am convinced that the evidence is not sufficient to prove the charge against the appellant. Suspicion, however, strong cannot take the place of proof.

For these reasons, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her. The appellant who is on bail will now be discharged on her bail bonds.