ASHOK GOYAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 15th September, 1989, an information was received at P.S. Ashok Vihar that a woman namely Pramila Goyal and a boy Amit were found dead with burn injuries at house no. A-102, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar. The mother of the deceased Smt. Parkash Wati, Complainant met W/SI Preeti Arora and gave a statement that her daughter was married to one Ashok Goyal s/o late Keshav Nath Goyal, resident of Gurgaon on 8th December, 1978 and they had a son namely Amit aged nine years. Her daughter deceased Pramila was living on rent at the abovementioned house for the last eight years and her husband used to live sometimes at Ashok Vihar and sometimes at Gurgaon. She further stated that her deceased daughter used to often complaint to her that her husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and their husbands were not treating her properly. On that day, at about 2.30 p.m. somebody telephoned her and informed her that her daughter and grandson Amit had died due to burn injures and she along with her daughter-in-law immediately reached Ashok Vihar. She found both of them in a burnt condition. Her daughter had left a note which was shown to her by the police signed by her deceased daughter in which she had written that her husband, mother-in-law, sisters-in-law and their husbands are responsible for her death. On the basis of this statement Ex.PW2/A and the suicide note Ex.P1, a case FIR No. 281/1989 Ex.PW2/B under Section 498A/306 IPC was registered at P.S. Ashok Vihar. After around 15 days when the house was opened, PW1, the brother-in-law of the deceased recovered another note Ex.PA dated 15th September, 1989 written by the deceased. The said note reads as under in vernacular (Hindi): -

(2.) After recording statements of the witnesses and on receipt of the opinion of the CFSL as regards the handwriting on the suicide note, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant , his mother Rajkumari, Sisters Pushpa Mittal, Shobha Jain, Veena Bansal, Manju Gupta, Kusum Gupta and their husbands, Ram Avtar Mittal, Vinod Jain, Dinesh Kumar, S.S. Gupta and Khem Chand. Charges were framed against all the accused persons for offences punishable under Section 498A/306 IPC. After recording all the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and the defence evidence, all the other accused except the mother-in-law of the deceased who died during the trial and the Appellant herein were acquitted. The Appellant was convicted for the aforementioned offences and awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with a fine of '10,000/- and in default thereof, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 498A IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine of '10,000/- and in default thereof to under Simple Imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 306 IPC. This judgment and order on sentence is impugned in the present appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that neither in the two dying declarations Ex. P1 and PA, nor in the testimony of three witnesses i.e. PW1 Vinod Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased; PW 3 Mridula Gupta, sister of the deceased and PW 4 P.K. Gupta, the brother of the deceased, there is any allegation of any willful conduct which would have caused harassment to the extent of driving the deceased to commit suicide or cause any danger to her life or limb. In the two dying declarations and the testimony of the witnesses, there is no allegation of omission or commission of an act on the part of the Appellant which would amount to an instigation to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that taking the evidence of the prosecution on its face value and believing the same to be proved, the only allegation is that the Appellant did not take care and failed to fulfil his responsibilities towards his wife and child and only fulfilled his duties towards his mother and sisters. Such an allegation cannot amount to harassment of the kind which would drive a woman to commit suicide. The allegations levelled are vague. Even the brother and the sister of the deceased have only stated that she was being harassed by her husband and in-laws. Reliance is placed on Mankama v. State of Kerala, 2009 10 SCC 164. For a married life spanning for more than 10 years, no specific incident of harassment has been given. It is contended that a cumulative reading of the prosecution case shows that firstly the Appellant did not give importance and weightage to the deceased but to his mother and sisters. Secondly, the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law were doing some black magic and the husband was not taking any action thereon. Thus, the Appellant could not be held guilty for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC or Section 498A IPC. Relying on Sohan Raj Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2008 11 SCC 215, it is contended that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide which is absent in the present case. The presumption as available under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the present case as the parties were married for more than nine years. The fact that she had no money is discredited by her dying declaration wherein she states that all her household articles, money in the bank accounts and jewellery be given to her brother as they did not belong to the Appellant. Thus, she had sufficient funds and resources with her. It is apparent that due to depression she became revengeful. Her mental depravity was to the extent that she not only took her life but also the life of her 9 years old child.