STATE OF J&K Vs. VIMAL DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31 -03 -1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udhampur acquitting the respondents of the charge of offence punishable under sections 306/201 RPC. Facts of the case out of which the appeal arises are that the deceased Mst. Shoba Devi who was married to respondent Sukhdev Singh died an unnatural death on 07 -05 -1991 in village Barmeen Teh. Ranmagar. She was cremated on 08 -05 -1991. On the report of the father of the deceased, a case u/s 498 -A/306/201 RPC was registered against the respondents in police station Ramnagar. After investigation, the police dropped the charge u/s 498 -A, but found the accused guilty of offence punishable u/s 306/201 RPC The accused were tried on the charge and finally acquitted by the order impugned.

(2.) THE judgment is assailed on the ground that although the deceased had been married only a year before her death, yet the learned trial court ignored the mandate of section 114 -C of the Evidence Act. Mr. Kakkar appearing for the state argued that the learned trial court failed to raise presumption about the abetment and also ignored the circumstances that respondents had hurriedly cremated the dead body to destroy the evidence. Both these circumstances according to the learned counsel stare at the conduct of the respondents which is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act. He next argued that there can be no direct evidence of cruelty in the absence of which what ever deceased confided to her parents ought to have been accepted without any reservation considering the nature of relationship involved. A married women generally does not complain against her in - laws and even if she volunteers an information, it is always with reservation to avoid further embarrassment if the information reaches the husband or the in - laws. So ordinarily, argued, learned counsel statements of parents of the deceased should have been accepted without seeking further corroboration. The argument has been controverted by Mr. Gupta, appearing for the respondents on the plea that in the absence of post -mortem finding it is not possible to opine about the cause of death. Since the offence of abetment to suicide pre -sup -posed that the deceased must have committed suicide unless cause of death is proved, the offence of abetment is not made out. According to the learned counsel even the evidence of cruelty which is a sine -quo -non for raising presumption u/s 114 -C of the Evidence Act is lacking because even if the statements of PWs the Chanchal Singh and Mst. Satya Devi who are parents of the deceased is accepted as true, charge of cruelty is not established. There are two versions about the cause of death. According to one version she consumed some poisonous object and died and the other is that she died because of high blood pressure and severe head -ache. Both the versions are based on individual perception unsupported by expert evidence as body was not subjected to the postmortem. So unless suicide is established section 114 -C of the Evidence Act will not be attracted. This section reads: -

(3.) TWO fold requirements of section are one that the woman must have died by committing suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and two her husband or such relative of the husband had subjected her to cruelty. It is a case where neither of these requirements were found established by the trial court.