Rama Devi and anr. Vs. Delhi Administration - Court Judgment

G.R. Luthra, J.

1. Two petitions (Crl. Rev. No. 108 of 1985 and Crl. Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985) are being decided together and the judgment is being written in the file of Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1985. Both these petitions are directed against the same order dated April 18, 1985 directing the framing of a charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against all the petitioners and then on the same day framing formal charge. The petitioners in both the cases were charged with commission of offence of abetment to commit suicide by Smt. Promila on January 15, 1984 at 7.45 p.m.

2. Promila was daughter of Ram Pershad Sharma, resident of Trinagar, Delhi. About five years ago, she was married to one Raghbir and after marriage they started living at village Aurangabad, District Sonepat, Haryana.

3. Ram Kishan (petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1985) is step brother of Raghbir (husband of deceased). The other petitioner Smt. Rama Devi in that petition is wife of Ram Kishan. Smt. Daya Wati is sister, Smt. Naraini Devi is mother and Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram are brothers of said Raghbir. These four persons are petitioners in Criminal Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985.

4. The version of the prosecution briefly is as follow:

'Nearly six months after the marriage, Raghbir his parents, his brothers Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram and his sister Daya Wati started harassing Promila because she had not brought adequate dowry. Once they beat her with iron rods, in respect of which a report was lodged in police station Rai, District Sonepat.'

Finding that Promila was not safe in her matrimonial home, her father Ram Pershad brought her to his house. For about two years Promila remained with her parents. During the time she so stayed, letters used to be received from Raghbir making demands of dowry.

5. After the expiry of about two years, Raghbir and his father met the father of Promila and requested that the Promila should be sent back to her matrimonial home. Naraini Devi mother, Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram brothers of Raghbir assured that Promila would not be harassed. However, their cruel treatment continued. Raghbir being addict to drink liquor used to come home intoxicated daily and when Promila would take objection, she used to be beaten.

6. About 15 days prior to her death, Promila came to her parental home and stayed there for three days. She complained that Raghbir had not still amended himself and he was continuing with his drinking and gambling. Ram Kishan also sent a message to the father of Promila that he should go himself to Raghbir and tell him to give up drinking.

7. Ram Pershad, his wife and daughter advised Raghbir that he should improve but he did not pay any heed. Even Om Parkash, son-in-law of elder brother of Ram Pershad, tried to prevail upon Raghbir for not including in vices but of no avail. In fact, Raghbir was so incorrigible that even when he was being advised to improve, he was in drunken state.

8. At about 7.45 p.m. Ram Kishan and Leela informed that Promila was indisposed and that on that account she had been sent to Hindu Rao Hospital Ram Pershad and his son Rajinder Singh went to Hindu Rao Hospital and found that Promila was dead. Ram Pershad lodged a report with the police.

9. During investigation, on postmortem and Chemical examination it was found that Promila had taken potassium cyanide and her death had occurred on account of the same.

10. The question for determination in this case is if the charge should have been framed against the petitioners or any of them or not. In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh : 1977CriLJ1606 , the law in this respect was laid down. Following, are the relevant observations of the Supreme Court in this respect:

'Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................

If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defense evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. An exhaustive list of the circumstances to indicate as to what will lead to one conclusion or the other is neither possible not advisable. We may just illustrate the difference of the law by one more example. If the scales of pen as to the guilt or innocence of the accused are something like even at the conclusion of the trial, then, on the theory of benefit of doubt the case is to end in his acquittal. But if, on the other hand it is so at the initial stage of making an order under Section 227 or Section 228, then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under Section 228 and not under Section 227.'

It is in the light of these observations that the decision is to be made.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 306 IPC reads as under:

'If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine'

12. Abetment is defined in Section 107 IPC which reads as under:

'A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

First--Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly--Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for that doing of the thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation--I. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.'

13. By way of the Criminal law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, which came into force on 25th December 1983 Section 113A was inserted in the Evidence Act, which reads as under:

'113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman:

When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband, or by such relative of her husband.

Explanation--For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty' shall have the same meaning as in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).'

14. That provision raises a presumption in respect of abetment of suicide in case two conditions are fulfillled. The first condition is that the woman who commits suicide was married within a period of seven years immediately preceding the commission of suicide. The Second condition is that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband or by any relative of the husband.

15. The word 'cruelty' is defined in the Explanationn to Section 498A IPC introduced by the aforesaid Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. That Explanationn reads as under:

'Explanation--For the purposes of this section 'cruelty' means--

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security of is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.'

16. According to the Supreme Court judgment : 1977CriLJ1606 if there is a strong suspicion that a person had committed offence and the sale of pan as to the guilt or innocence of the accused is something like even at the initial stage of framing of charge, the charge should be framed against the said accused. When that is so, aforesaid Section 113-A of the Evidence Act assumes great importance because on fulfillment of the aforesaid two conditions, a presumption as to commission of the offence of abetment to commit suicide is raised. That section, thereforee, at this stage obviates the necessity of any analysis on the basis of the provisions of Section 306 IPC and the definition of 'abetment as given in Section 107 IPC. Hence, it is to be seen as to whose case out of the petitioners, fits in with the provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act.

17. Out of the two conditions to be fulfillled under Section 113A of Evidence Act, one to the effect that the marriage of deceased must have taken place within seven years immediately preceding the suicide obviously stands satisfied in this case. So, we have to see as to whom of the petitioners was cruel. First of all I take up the case of Smt. Rama Devi and her husband Ram Kishan petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 108/85. The version of the prosecution, which has been mentioned above, is based on the statement of Ram Pershad Sharma, father of deceased Promila. That statement was incorporated in the first information report. It is apparent from that statement that the role of the aforesaid Ram Kishan was merely to the effect that he had sent a message to Ram Pershad Sharma to personally advise Raghbir Singh to mend his ways and that thereafter he sent a message that Promila (now deceased) was indisposed due to which she had been taken to hospital.

18. Besides Ram Pershad Sharma made a supplementary statement also. In that statement he complained that Ram Kishan and his wife had kept the former in the dark because the latter were always assuring that no harm would be caused to Promila and that but for such assurances, he would not have sent Promila back to her in-laws. That statement is further to the effect that death of Promila had taken place on account of taunting, beating etc. by her husband Raghbir Singh, Ram Kishan, Rama Devi, mother-in-law Naraini Devi, Sukhbir, Daulat and Dayawati.

19. Obviously the supplementary statement has no value. The mere assurance on the part of Ram Kishan and his wife to the effect that no harm would come to Promila does not amount to cruelty. Although at the end of statement, Ram Pershad Sharma blamed amongst others, Ram Kishan and his wife Rama Devi to the effect that death of Promila had taken place on account of their taunting, harassment, beating etc., yet the same is merely his opinion or his conclusions based upon his grievance that he was kept in the dark about mal-treatment to Promila. The opinion of a witness is not relevant and inadmissible in evidence. The opinions of a witness are relevant only under Sections 45 to 51 of the Evidence Act. Such opinion of a witness is not covered by any of the provisions of Sections 45 to 51 of the Evidence Act. Hence the statement of Ram Pershad Sharma has no value as against Ram Kishan and his wife Rama Devi.

20. Apart from the statement of Ram Pershad Sharma, that of Sita Ram resident No. 71 Sawan Park Extension, Trinagar, Delhi was also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. That Sita Ram is elder brother of Ram Pershad Sharma. He does not blame Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi. In nut shell, his statement is that when Promila was taken away to the house of her in-law, even then there were complaints to the effect that she was being beaten by her husband Raghbir Singh, her mother-in-law Naraini Devi and her husband's brothers Daulat and Sukhbir because the demand of money and articles were not being met by the parents of Promila.

21. Under the above circumstances there is hardly any case for framing of charge against Ram Kishan and his wife Rama Devi.

22. Now I am taking up the case of Smt. Dayawati. According to the statement of Ram Pershad Sharma, Dayawati was an active party in the beating and harassment to Promila before Promila went to reside with her parents. Afterwards Promila remained with her parents for two years, and then came back to her in-laws. In the original statement Ram Pershad does not complain anything about the conduct of Dayawati after Promila had so come back. It is only in the supplementary statement that he complains that Dayawati was also one of the persons who was causing harassment, taunting etc to Promila on account of which Promila committed suicide.

23. It prima facie appears that Dayawati was taking part in harassment and maltreatment to Promila before the latter was taken away by her parents. However, after promila came back to her in-laws after spending two years with her parents, Dayawati's participation in cruelty to Promila does not appear from the statements of witnesses. It appears that it were the atrocities committed to Promila after she had come back from her parents' home to the matrimonial home that drove her two commit suicide because the cruelties which were meted out to her prior to her stay for two years in her parental home could not drive to such desperation as to commit suicide. thereforee, cruel activities are more important and immediate cause of death of Promila. When Dayawati does not seem to have and role in such period, I am of the opinion that charge should not be framed against her. Although in a supplementary statement of Ram Pershad Sharma, Dayawati has also been blamed for causing the commission of suicide by Promila yet as I have already mentioned, the same is merely an opinion and is not relevant.

24. Under the above circumstances, Smt. Dayawati, is also entitled to be discharged.

25. However, the remaining petitioners namely, Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh and Daulat Ram in Criminal Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985 (along with Raghbir Singh) are liable to be charged for commission of an offence, punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It appears from the statement of Ram Pershad Sharma as well as his brother that they had been continuously harassing and mal-treating Promila because she had not brought dowry to their expectation and her father was not able to fulfill their demands. The prosecution has also placed on record a letter purported to have been written by Raghbir Singh to his parents-in-law. That letter is dated 4th October 1978. In that letter there are clear references that the premises of the parents of Promila made to the mother of Raghbir Singh had not been fulfillled. There is also a complaint that the articles which were being given by the parents of Promila were not up to the mark had such clothes etc. be given as can be used with dignity. This is clear that the husband and mother-in-law of Promila were not satisfied with the dowry received and were making demands.

26. The net result is that I accept Criminal Revision Petition No. 108 of 1985 and discharge the petitioners. Ram Kishan and his wife Smt. Rama Devi. As far as Criminal Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985 is concerned the same, except relating to Dayawati is rejected and I find that Naraini Devi and her two sons Sukhbir and Daulat had been rightly charged by the trial court. The petition of Dayawati is, however, accepted and she is discharged.

27. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned for information and necessary action. He will have to amend the formal charges having regard to the discharge of Ram Kishan Smt. Daya Wati, and Smt. Rama Devi.

28. Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1985 and Criminal Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985 stand disposed of.