State of Haryana vs Jai Narain

S.S. Sodhi, J.

On May 15, 1986, the deadbody of Smt. Pista was found floating in the well in village Kheri. It is in respect of her death that her fatherinlaw and her motherinlaw were sent up for trial for an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution being that they had driven the deceased to suicide by their taunts and harassment.

The case of the prosecution rests upon that testimony of PW3 Pt. Shyam Lal who lodged the First Information Report in this case at Police Station, Ateli at about 1.30 p.m. on May 15, 1986. He deposed that both Jai Narain and his wife Smt. Chameli did not treat their daughterinlaw Pista well and that on 34 occasions her father had called a Panchayat and the matter had been got sefted through the intervention of the panchayat. It was further his testimony that on May 3, 1986, he had learnt that Pista was missing from her house and two days later he saw a deadbody floating in the well and then he went and reported the matter to the Sarpanch and later to the police.

The Sarpanch PW2 Mangat Singh also deposed in the same fashion, namely, that the deceased used to be harassed by Jai Narain and Smt. Smt. Chameli and on the request of Pista''s father he had convened a Panchayat where they admitted that they had been in the wrong and promised thereafter to treat Pista well. Her father, then took Pista with him and later when Pista''s husband Puran, who was employed in the Navy, came on leave and went to fetch his wife, her father did not permit him to bring her until he (Mangat Singh) had also given an assurance of Pista being treated well by her husband and his family. He says he gave such an assurance and then Pista came home. He further stated that every time Pursan went back to duty, he would send his wife to her parental village and would bring her home only when he came on leave. In 1986, however, while returning to duty, he left Pista at his parents'' house. To the same effect, is the testimony of PW4 Ram Kumar.

Next to note is the statement of father of the deceased PW5 Jagdish who stated that it was in 1979 that his daughter Pista had been married to Puran. Three daughters were borne to her but they all died. He also deposed to, Pista not being treated well by her husband''s parents and a panchayat consequently being convened. Further he mentioned about the writing, assuring good conduct that he had asked for before sending his daughter Pista with her husband Puran.

The prosecution had also placed on record four letters Exs. PD, PE, PF and PG with a view to spell out from the contents thereof, the harassment meted out to the deceased by her husband''s parents. PW5 Jagdish deposited to the letter Ex. PD. while PW8 Sat Narain deposed to the other letter Ex. PE, PW6 Chhotu Ram and PW7 Kishan Lal Sub Post Master deposed to these letters having gone through the post.

The investigation in this case was conducted by PW9 SI Sher Singh who stated that on the First Information Report of this case being recorded, he went to the village and got the deadbody of the deceased taken out of the well. He then prepared the inquest report and recorded the statements of the witnesses. As regards Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli, he stated that they were arrested on May 17, 1986.

When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, both Jai Narain and his wife Smt. Chameli took up the same pleas, namely, that Pista deceased used to remain perturbed as all her three daughters had died and she did not have any male issue. She was frustrated on this account and on May 13, 1986, she disappeared from the house. They both then searched for her and also sent a message to her father. They claimed that they had been falsely involved in this case on account of party faction. They further asserted that they in fact, were arrested from the village on May 15, 1986.

The learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul, taking into account the material on record held that the charge against Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli had not been proved and they were consequently acquitted. It is this order that is now sought to be challenged in appeal.

No exception can indeed be taken to the acquittal of Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli. It will be seem that the allegations of harassment and maltreatment made against them are of a very vague and gernal nature. There is no material on record to pinpoint any act on their part in proximity of time, to the deceased deciding to take her own life in this behalf, there is only the testimony of PW4 Ram Kumar to the effect that while passing in front of the house of Jai Narain on May 13, 1986, he heard a quarrel going on the house. He could gather that Jai Narain was demanding something from either Pista or his wife Smt. Chameli and thereafter on inability being shown by the other (presumably to give what was demanded) somebody stated from inside the house as to why an incompetent person did not find a well or Johar. This statement cannot in any manner advance the prosecution case, as he did not see the quarrelling parties nor indeed could he say that one of them was Pista deceased.

It will be seen that the prosecution has sought to build up its case upon three allegations, namely, that Jai Narain had wanted to rape the deceased; the beating of the deceased by Jai Narain and his wife and the demand by them of dowry.

The only mention of Jai Narain having an evil eye on his daughterinlaw comes in the testimony of Jagdish PW5, father of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that there is no such mention in any of the letters said to have been written by the deceased to her father or other people nor indeed was there any mention or any hint of it of the Panchayats that are stated to have been held at his instance. No suggestion of this kind was even put to PW2 Mangat Singh or PW3 Pt. Shyam Lal. There is also no suggestion that there was ever any mention of such thing by the deceased to her husband Puran. It deserves note here that it has not, in any manner, been suggested that the relations of the deceased and Puran were anything but good and cordial.

As regards Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli having given beating to their daughterinlaw Pista deceased what has come on record shows that the occurrence took place as far back as 1983, that was three years before the present incident. This by itself, in the absence of any evidence of continued beating thereafter cannot justify the accusing finger being pointed to Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli.

Finally, there is the matter of the allegations pertaining to the demand for dowry. Here, too, there is no corroborative evidence to lend assurance to it.

The investigation in this case also does not inspire confidence, in as such as, while the father of the deceased PW5 Jagdish had stated that he handed over the letters Exs. PD, PE, PF and PG and the writing Ex. PB to Police on May 15, 1986, the Investigating Officer SI Sher Singh had a different story to tell, namely that they had been produced before him by Jagdish two days later i.e. May 17, 1986. Similarly, as regards the arrest of Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli, while PW2 Mangat Singh Sarpanch stated that they were present in the village when the police came on May 15, 1960. The Investigating Officer deposed that he arrested them on May 17, 1960, as they were not available earlier. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly disbelieved the Investigating Officer on both these counts.

Another significant aspect to be taken note of here is the postmortem report, which reveals that there was no mark of injury on the deadbody of the deceased, which clearly runs counter to the allegations of the deceased being beaten and driven to suicide.

Seen in its totality, the material on record and the circumstances of the case, bring forth no case for Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli to answer. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly acquitted them of the charge framed against. This order thus warrants no interference in appeal. This appeal is consequently hereby dismissed. The bail bonds of Jai Narain and Smt. Chameli, who were on bail shall now stand discharged.