TULSIRAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Tulsiram has been convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and one year respectively. He has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the first offence and Rs. 200/-for the second offence.

(2.) DECEASED Siyawati was married to accused Tulsiram in Pat form six years before her death. She was early married to some other man. Her dead body was recovered from a well in village Chunai on 25. 4. 1996. She was living with her husband in that village. The finding of the Trial Court that Siyawati committed suicide by jumping into the well is unassailable.

(3.) THE point for determination is whether the appellant has abetted commission of suicide by her and whether he subjected her to cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 498-A, I. P. C. The Trial Court has answered this point in the affirmative. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides the evidence on record has been scanned by this Court. Siyawati had lodged the report (Ex. P/7) on 22. 3. 1996 in which she has stated that she was in the house of her father and at that time her husband Tulsiram came there to take her to his own house. In this report it is mentioned that accused Tulsiram had caused two injuries to Siyawati. After this report she was sent for medical examination. As per medical report (Ex. P/1) of Dr. R. K. Vishwakarma (P. W. 5) two abrasions each of With inch were found on her left wrist joint and right index finger. The first injury was caused by broken piece of bangle and the second injury was caused by some hard and rough object. On the basis of these injuries it is said that the accused was treating his wife Siyawati with cruelty. In this connection it must be seen that the accused was a truck driver. Siyawati had earlier married to one man and then she went to live with another man. After leaving these two persons she came to live with the accused and married her in Pat form. Therefore, the two abrasions do not constitute the degree of cruelty envisaged by Explanation (a) to Section 498-A, I. P. C. According to this definition cruelty means any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. The causing of these two abrasions was not such a conduct on the part of the husband which could ordinarily drive a woman to commit suicide. Apart from that the matter was settled. According to Khubbilal (P. W. 1), the father of the deceased, accused Tulsiram came to his house after fifteen days of this report, begged excuse from his wife and took her to his house. Therefore, the differences between the two were patched-up, It is not known what actually happened during the period of fifteen days preceding the death of the deceased. There is no definite evidence that the accused, treated Siyawati with cruelty during this period of fifteen days. The evidence relating to the quarrel between the husband and wife during the period of her stay in the matrimonial house is not of very definite character. The cause of quarrel is also not known. At any rate there was no demand of dowry. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal, AIR 1994 SC 1418=i (1994) DMC 138=iv (1993) CCR 393 (SC), that if it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hyper-sensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty. As already stated, the cruelty which is said to have been meted out by the accused to his wife Siyawati was not of such a culpable degree which could in the ordinary course drive her to bring an end to her life. The Trial Court has drawn an adverse inference against the accused because he did not make any hue and cry when Siyawati disappeared from his house. According to Chetram (D. W. 1), accused Tulsiram was not in the village when Siyawati was found dead in the village well. He has further stated that Tulsiram had gone on his duty as a truck driver and sometime he used to come back after ten-fifteen days. Therefore, it is not unlikely that the accused was hot in the house when Siyawati entertained the idea of committing suicide and left her house. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to jump to the conclusion that the accused had treated Siyawati with cruelty after bringing her from the house of her father fifteen days before her death.