STATE OF U.P. Vs. KM. ASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Lalitpur in S.T. No.18 of 2014 "State of U.P. Vs. Km. Asha", acquitting the accused-respondent from the charges of offence under Sec. 306 I.P.C.

(2.) Learned A.G.A. contended that as per F.I.R. lodged by Smt. Amita Yadav her son Vinay Yadav was in service of Indian Railway at Mathura Junction station and was trapped by the accused-respondent in love affair with her, who taken her to Delhi, Gurgaon and then brought to Lalitpur; that Vinay Yadav had taken away a sum of Rs.1,30,000.00 cash, ear-rings, ring and Mangalsutra with him and that the respondent pressurized him for making marriage with her but since her son was not ready for marriage, he was tortured by the respondent, because of which he committed suicide; that the charges under Sec. 306 I.P.C. were framed against the accused-respondent and in order to prove the charges the prosecution had produced Smt. Amita Yadav and Chaudhary Maange Singh, the mother and father of deceased as P.W.-1 & P.W.-2, Manoj Kumar, the friend of deceased as P.W.-3 apart from formal witnesses i.e. Medical Officer Dr. Raj Narayan, who conducted the post-mortem, Head Constable Amar Singh, S.I. Ram Autar and S.I. Shamshad Khan, the Investigating Officer as P.W.-4 to P.W.-7; that it was proved from the evidence on record that son of first informant committed suicide on account of abetment caused by the accused-respondent and so the learned trial court acted wrongly and illegally in acquitting the accused; that learned trial court acted wrongly in disbelieving the prosecution evidence and misread the evidence on record.

(3.) Upon hearing learned A.G.A. and perusal of record of appeal as well as the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, I find that learned trial court has discussed the evidence on record in detail with every minute aspect of the evidence. The evidence on record shows that there is no whisper of any talk between the accused-respondent and deceased and there is nothing on record to show that by which 'action' or by which 'words' the accused-respondent caused abetment or to instigated the deceased for committing suicide. The allegations made in F.I.R. regarding the love affair between the deceased and the accused-respondent do not show that the deceased was not ready to make marriage with accused-respondent and there is nothing to show on account of pressure allegedly made by accused-respondent, for the marriage, he could have committed suicide particularly in view of the allegations made in the F.I.R. to the effect that he had taken away a sum of Rs.1,30,000.00 apart from the ornaments, ear-rings, ring and Mangalsutra. Moreover, even if it may be presumed for the sake of arguments that he was not ready for making marriage with the accused-respondent, there is nothing on record to show that which 'words' were used by the accused-respondent or what action was made by her or in what manner she caused any degree of abetment or instigation to commit suicide by the son of first informant, on account of which he actually committed suicide. In any case if at all, he was not willing to make marriage with the accused-respondent, despite having love for her due to which he had taken away money and ornaments from home, and committed suicide without any abetment or instigation from the accused-respondent, she may not be held responsible for causing abetment to commit suicide by the deceased Vinay Yadav.