Satish Ate vs State of Maharashtra

The appellant-accused has challenged herein his conviction for the offence under S. 306 of the IPC.

The prosecution case is that one Maya, who was a resident of village Rohana in Wardha district was in love with the appellant-accused and their love affair was going on for about one-and-a-half years. That, the parents of Maya agreed for the marriage between Maya and the accused. The accused also agreed for the same and it was decided that the marriage was to be performed on 18-6-1989. However, the accused did not come and avoided to get married. It has further come in the prosecution evidence that on 24-6-1989, Maya filed a report at Exhibit 42 with the Police Station alleging therein that though her marriage was fixed with the accused and though the clothes etc. were stitched, the accused had not married her as his mother Gangabai had demanded Rs. 5000/- from her as a pre-condition for her marriage with the accused and as a result of that, the accused was searching for other girls. The prosecutrix, in that report, had stated that her life and reputation would be ruined and, therefore, prayed for proper action. It seems that the police did not do anything on this report. After about three weeks of this report, it is reported that Maya poured kerosene on her person while she was in her house and thereafter jumped into the nearby well while she was burning. As a result of that she met with a watery grave. A report came to be given by her uncle Ravindra examined as PW-1 and in that report, Ravindra had merely stated that Maya had jumped into the well in a burning condition. However, later on, it seems that on the basis of the statements of the parents of Maya, the Police Station Officer prepared a report and lodged the First Information Report. It is on that basis that the investigation started. In post-mortem report, it turned out that the unfortunate girl was having 12 weeks of pregnancy. The police thereafter recorded the statements, executed the inquest panchanama as well as the spot panchanama and put up the charge-sheet against the accused.

2A. The accused abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. He denied that he had any love affair with Maya. He also denied that Maya had died as a result of the deception practised by him.

The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it of the witnesses, including the parents and near relatives of Maya, came to the conclusion that Maya had died as a result of the deception practised by the accused and, therefore, the accused had abetted the suicide by Maya. It is this finding of conviction and the consequent sentence which is the subject matter of this appeal.

Mrs. Dangre, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused, firstly points out that it has nowhere been proved in the evidence that Maya was impregnated by the accused. She further submits that it could not be said at all that the love affair between Maya and the accused was an established fact and that Maya committed suicide because the accused refused to marry her. She has pointed out that the prosecution has not been able to prove the abetment on the part of the accused for Maya''s suicide. She dubs the trial Court''s judgment as a moral conviction.

Shri Dawale, learned Public Prosecutor, very strenuously submits that there were enough circumstances on record to show that Maya''s death is nothing but a direct result of the deception practised on her by the accused and, therefore, the accused had abetted the act of suicide by Maya.

Mrs. Dangre has taken me through the whole evidence. The evidence mainly consists of PW-1 Ravindra Bramhane, PW-2 Shalik Bramhane, PW-4 Parvatabai w/o. Shalikram Bramhane, PW-5 Ashok Bramhane and PW-6 Ravindra Didhale. The prosecution has also examined PW-3 Bapurao Bagade who has turned hostile. All these witnesses have in one tone asserted that the accused was having love affairs with Maya. All of them have suggested further that the marriage of Maya was fixed to be held on 18-6-1989 and the said marriage was to be performed at Wardha, probably as a Court-marriage, but the accused made himself scarce and did not come. Unfortunately, the evidence is of extremely general nature. PW-1 Ravindra has nowhere stated that Maya had in any manner indicated to the accused that his refusal to marry would result in her suicide or that she had in any manner indicated to the accused that she would taken any extreme steps if the accused had refused to marry her. In his cross-examination also there is hardly anything to suggest that the marriage between the accused and Maya was a forgone conclusion. Now, this witness had given the first report of accidental death of Maya vide Exhibit 12. Very strangely, however, there is no reference in the said report regarding any existing love affair or his conviction that Maya had committed suicide as she was allegedly deceived by the accused. In this back-drop, it will have to be seen that Maya had not left any suicide note and, therefore, it will have to be a conjecture that she had committed the suicide as she was deceived by the accused.

The evidence of PW-2 Shalik, the father of Maya is also more or less on the same lines. He confirmed that the appellant-accused had left the village prior to about three days fixed for the marriage, but he did not return at all and returned only after about 15 days. He goes on to confirm that Maya could not meet the accused at Wardha and their marriage could not be performed and, therefore, Maya had given a report vide Exhibit 42, in Pulgaon Police Station. Again, there is nothing to suggest that immediately prior to her suicide, the accused had met Maya, in any manner. On the other hand, he goes on to say that after the marriage was cancelled, Maya returned to house and told that she would take decision in the matter. From the evidence of this witness also it does not seem that suicide of Maya on 12-7-1989 was in any manner relatable to the deception practised by the accused.

PW-3 Bapurao has refused to oblige the prosecution. Therefore, his evidence will have to be ignored. He is also a witness on an inquest panchanama which merely showed that Maya had burnt herself on the fateful day and thereafter probably died as a result of the burning.

PW-4 Parvatabai is the mother. She also speaks about the fixed marriage and the love affair between the accused and her daughter Maya. She suggests that it was Maya who had insisted to get the marriage performed in the Court and accordingly the date was fixed for the same. She has also suggested that Maya had made a report at Pulgaon Police Station. Again, there is nothing in the evidence to show that after accused had refused to marry and after Maya had given a report on 24-6-1989 anything took place between Maya and the accused.

All these witnesses are unanimously declaring that there is a love affair between the accused and Maya, but on the date fixed for marriage which was to be a Court marriage at Wardha, the accused did not turn up. It is on that account that the witnesses are presuming that it was the accused who dropped the marriage. The evidence of PW-5 Ashok is also in the same terms. He is the only witness who says that after the accused failed to turn up on 18-6-1989, attempts were made to search the accused and that Maya had also attempted to commit suicide by taking kerosene. He claims that he had gone to Police Station Rohana and called one Shambharkar, Police Constable to his house and requested him to appease Maya and told her not to commit suicide. He states that after 4-5 days the accused returned to the village and had come to his house and there was a talk between the accused and Maya and on the next day, Maya poured kerosene. Now, neither the said Police Constable Shambharkar has been examined nor has this visit of the accused also been established.

Evidence of PW-6 Ravindra Didhale is also more or the less on the same lines. Interestingly, this PW-6 Ravindra claims to have been in love with Chhaya, the sister of the deceased Maya. He also says that while he had a love affair with Chhaya, accused had a love affair with Maya and that there were relations between Maya and the accused for about one-and-a-half years prior to the incident. In his cross-examination, however, it has come that the girl Chhaya with whom he was to be married was seven months pregnant at the time of her marriage with him, and in the second breath, he goes on to admit that Chhaya was driven out of her house, that she performed marriage with some other person, namely, Manohar, and was still living with some third person at Nagpur. He has given a most damaging admission that he did not know whether some other persons were also visiting the house of Maya. He also expresses that he did not know whether the father and mother were extending threats to her as her behaviour was not proper. He has not specifically denied but claims that he did not know that Maya was having relations with some other persons from village Rohana. Even as regards the said marriage between the accused and Maya, which was to be performed on 18-6-1989, he says that no priest was arranged, the marriage was not settled with the mediation of anybody and no invitation cards were also printed. Therefore, it seems that even according to this witness, the so-called marriage on 18-6-1989 was going to be a hush-hush affair.

All these witnesses have, however, not stated even one word about the so-called pregnancy of Maya. One can understand the outside witnesses not speaking anything, but even her mother and father are silent about the so-called pregnancy of Maya. Nobody has even ventured to suggest that the said pregnancy of Maya was attributable only to the accused. In fact, nobody has made even a faint reference to the so-called pregnancy. On this back-drop, when Exhibit 42 is read, which is a report made by Maya to Pulgaon Police Station, one really fails to understand as to whether the refusal of the accused to marry Maya was a deliberate act on his part calculated to bring about her suicide. In her report which is given on 24-6-1989 just about six days after the date on which the marriage was fixed, Maya had not really attributed any motives to the accused. The report is undoubtedly admissible in evidence u/s 32 of the Evidence Act, as it directly pertains to the reason of her death, or at least pertains to the circumstances which were prevailing immediately prior to her death. In that report, Maya had really blamed the mother of the accused by naming her and alleging against her that she was demanding Rs. 5000/- from her as a pre-condition of her marriage with the accused. She obviously had shown her apprehensive mind when she says that the accused was searching for the other girls. However, it has to be noted that in this report, she had found no fault with the accused at all. Again, Maya had not, in any manner, accused the accused of having any physical intimacy with her. She had not disclosed her state of physical health at that time. She had simply stated that the accused was seeing the other girls which would ruin her life. In short, the whole evidence falls short to suggest any active abetment on the part of the appellant-accused.

In order that the offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code is brought home, it must be first proved that the accused has instigated some person to commit suicide or has engaged with anybody in any conspiracy for obtaining the desired result, i.e., the suicide on the part of the lady, and acts or illegally omits to act in pursuance of such conspiracy or that the accused intentionally induces by any act or illegal omission the committing of suicide. In any event, it must be brought home that the accused had any intention of bringing about the suicide on the part of the deceased. The essence of Third clause of Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is the intention on the part of the accused. Unfortunately, in this case, the prosecution evidence falls short of establishing such intention on the part of the accused.

In fact, in such a case it would be difficult to hold that the accused had intended to bring about the suicide on the part of the unfortunate girl. His omission to marry could not be said to be calculated to bring about her suicide and, indeed, there is no evidence in this case to that effect. If the evidence is appreciated objectively also, it would show that Maya had nowhere attributed the pregnancy to the accused when she had a clear-cut chance to do so. She had not complained in any manner against the accused to her mother and father that the accused had taken any undue advantage of her or had any physical contacts with her. The evidence of the witnesses as has already been pointed out completely falls short to raise any such inference.

It is not established that the accused had intended to bring about the suicide on the part of Maya, or at least had known that Maya would commit suicide because of his refusal. The evidence falls short of establishing any such intention on the part of the accused. In a reported decision in Surenderkaur v. State of Punjab 1983 Cri LJ 35; Hry., the facts were more telling. In that case, the girl was forced to get herself photographed with one of the accused persons in compromising poses. There was evidence on record to suggest that the boy, with whom she got photographed and the maternal uncles had given her threats that she should marry the accused with whom she was photographed or else either she would die or she would be kidnapped by them. There was a dying declaration in shape of the chit wherein the girl had specifically stated that because of the deception practised by the accused on her, her photographs were obtained and they had also threatened her with the death of her parents and, therefore, before the photographs reached the father, she was going to end her life. The learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deduced from this evidence that there could be no intention on the part of any of the accused to bring about the suicide and, in fact, the girl had committed suicide to save her father from being exposed and save him from the shame that he would have put to cause of the misconduct of the daughter. The Court went on to hold that it was an independent act of her to meet her end. Similar is the situation here. It cannot be said that the accused had, in any manner, intended that the unfortunate girl, Maya, should commit suicide. There is absolutely no evidence of any exhortation on his part nor is there evidence to suggest that the accused was in any manner instrumental in infusing the idea of suicide into the mind of Maya. It appears to be an independent act of Maya. It is, indeed, unfortunate that a young life should have been lost like this. It is further indeed very unfortunate that Maya should have died even before she had tested this life in any manner. However, it cannot be said that her death was intended in any manner by the accused. At least, there is no evidence to that effect. In that view of the matter, the inference drawn by the trial Court cannot be sustained.

The learned trial Court has accepted that the accused was on visiting terms to the house of PW-2 Shalik and that he had developed intimacy with Maya and there was a love affair between the two. The trial Court further went to hold that as a result of this love affair, the marriage was fixed on 18-6-1989. However, on the previous day of that, the accused left the village and avoided to perform the marriage with Maya. However, the trial Court has without any basis jumped to the conclusion that Maya became pregnant only from the accused, without there being any evidence in that behalf. It has been admitted by the doctor that the paternity could be fixed with the aid of modern techniques. No such efforts had been made by the investigating agency. The learned Sessions Judge also relied upon the evidence of PW-5 Ashok Bramhane who has deposed that he called one Constable Shambharkar to appease Maya and to impress upon her mind not to commit suicide. Now, I have already pointed out that Shambharkar is neither examined as a witness nor has he in any manner surfaced during the investigation, and the claim to that effect by PW-5 would be rather suspicious. It is really intriguing that an uncle like Ashok (PW-5) should have known about the talk between the accused and Maya on the previous day, while no other inmates of the house including her mother or father should have even referred to such talk having been held between the accused and Maya. The complete absence of any such talk, as deposed to by PW-5 Ashok, in the evidence of mother, father as also other uncles of Maya, raises a grave doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of PW-5 Ashok. It is difficult to accept that after having refused to marry or after having remained absent at Wardha, the accused would go and start talking to Maya in her own house. The evidence of PW-5 Ashok appears to be unnatural. The trial Court has gone on to hold that had the accused married Maya on 18-6-1989, she would not have committed the suicide. This logic is rather faulty. It is not to be seen as to whether Maya would or would not have committed the suicide. What was really required to be found out was as to whether the accused intended by not marrying that she should commit suicide or whether he knew that she was likely to commit suicide. The learned Sessions Judge has precisely avoided to fix up this intention or knowledge on the part of the accused so as to hold him guilty of the abetment. Unfortunately, a moral conviction cannot take the place of the legal evidence which is absent in this case. In that view of the matter, the appeal will have to be allowed. Hence, the following order :-

The appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused passed by the trial Court is set aside and he is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and of which he was convicted. His bail bond stands cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellant accused.

Appeal allowed.