STATE OF J&K Vs. SANJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 16/11/2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter "the Trial Court"), whereby the respondents, who were facing trial for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) arising out of FIR No. 119/2011 registered at Police Station Jhajjar Kotli, Jammu, have been acquitted of the said charge. Through the medium of this appeal, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the acquittal of the respondents, primarily on the ground that the impugned judgment is contrary to facts and law and has been rendered mechanically without proper appreciation of the material evidence brought on record. It is contended that the Trial Court failed to weigh the evidence in its proper perspective, whereas the occurrence stood duly proved, rendering the acquittal bad in the eyes of the law. According to the appellants, the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt, yet the Trial Court resorted to a perverse appreciation of evidence, and hence, the acquittal deserves to be set aside with a consequential conviction of the respondents for the offence under Sec. 306 RPC.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court was that on 27/7/2011, one Raj Singh (PW-1), father of the deceased, lodged a written report at Police Station Jhajjar Kotli alleging that his daughter, namely, Arti Devi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who had been married to respondent No. 1 about five years prior, was being subjected to continuous harassment and taunts by her husband and in-laws for her inability to conceive and bear a child. The complainant alleged that due to this persistent harassment, the deceased became distraught, and on the fateful day, after a quarrel with respondent No. 1, she ended her life by committing suicide. Based on the said report, FIR No. 119/2011 came to be registered under Sec. 306 RPC. During the investigation, it was found that the deceased had committed suicide by tying a "chunni" around her neck, leading to asphyxia and death due to strangulation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all three respondents for the offence under Sec. 306 RPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution, to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined several witnesses, including PW-1 Raj Singh, PW-2 Som Singh, PW3 Kamal Singh, PW-4 Kewal Singh, PW-9 Head Constable Kaka Ram, and PW-11 Dr Narinder Sharma, Medical Officer. After the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, the respondents were examined under Sec. 342 Cr.P.C., but they did not opt to lead any defence evidence. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Trial Court concluded that there was no legal evidence connecting the respondents with the commission of the crime. The Court observed that even if the statements of PW-1 Raj Singh (father of the deceased), PW-2 Som Singh (cousin brother of the deceased), and PW-3 Kamal Singh (brother of the deceased) are examined, they merely reveal sporadic instances of matrimonial discord and differences between the husband and wife, which are not uncommon in domestic life. The Court held that mere harassment or quarrels in the family, per se, do not constitute abetment to suicide as envisaged under Ss. 306 and 107 RPC. Consequently, the Trial Court held that there was insufficient material to convict the accused of having abetted the deceased to commit suicide and acquitted them of the charge.