"REPORTABLE"
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. L.P. No. 54/2004
Date of decision : January 16, 2009
# STATE ..... Petitioner
! Through : Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP
SI Krishan Kumar
Versus
$ ASHU BANSAL & ANR. ..... Respondents
^ Through : Mr. Arvind Nigam, Adv. with
Mr. Manoj Taneja, Adv.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 378 (1) Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for leave to appeal against the judgment/order dated 12.2.2004 passed by the learned ASJ whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the offences under Section 306 IPC. Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 1 of 15
2. Leave granted. Let the petition be registered as an appeal.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties I proceed further to decide the appeal. Crl. Appeal No. 47/2009
4. Sh. C.D. Bansal sent a written complaint dated 21.4.1998 to Chowki Incharge, Police Station Saket alleging that his son Sanjeev was being constantly tortured and harassed by his wife Ashu Bansal and his in-laws since after his marriage in February, 1991 soon after marriage, they started living as husband and wife at Mumbai. They were blessed with a son in the year 1992. Accused Jagdish Chand Gupta had asked Sanjeev Bansal to make payment for the jewellery and other gift items given in marriage and on his default to do so jewellery and other valuables were taken away by Jagdish Chand Gupta. Accused Ashu Bansal, Sanjeev's wife, used to torture him by hurling abuses and getting physically violent. On various occasions (as detailed in the complaint), she insisted Sanjeev to Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 2 of 15 purchase everything in her name irrespective of the source of money. Though both of them invested money jointly for one flat, but the said flat was forcibly got registered by Ashu Bansal in her name. In December, 1997, both the accused persons allegedly came to the house of deceased Sanjeev along with other persons and forcibly took away household articles and other valuables and accused Ashu Bansal allegedly instigated Sanjeev to commit suicide under threat of killing him, in the presence of Duty Officer, D.N. Nagar Police Station, Bombay. Sanjeev left Bombay and came to Delhi on 8.3.1998 and since then was residing with his parents at E-43, Saket, New Delhi when on 12.3.1998 he committed suicide by hanging himself.
5. On the fateful day, a telephone call was allegedly received from Ashu Bansal at about 1.30 PM which was firstly attended by the wife of the complainant and then by deceased Sanjeev. Accused Ashu Bansal is stated to have abused the complainant's wife and told her that either Sanjeev should kill Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 3 of 15 himself or they would kill him. After talking on telephone, Sanjeev appeared terrified and he informed his mother that his wife used abusive language and insisted that he should kill himself or otherwise they would kill him. After receipt of the telephone Sanjeev remained in the company of his mother till 2.30 PM. It was at 3.00 PM when complainant heard a shriek from his wife, he went inside the room and was shocked to see that Sanjeev was hanging. Doctor Sharma was called and Sanjeev was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. Accordingly FIR was registered on 22.5.1998 against the accused persons for having committed offence under Section 306/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
6. Prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of its case. The Statement of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and after hearing the parties on merits, the trial court opined that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 4 of 15 reasonable doubt and therefore, was pleased to acquit the accused persons of the offences charged with.
7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the trial court, the State has filed the present appeal.
8. Learned APP for the State has argued that PW3 Raman Bansal, who happened to be the brother of deceased Sanjeev, has categorically proved by way of his testimony the letter Ex. P-1 purportedly written by Sanjeev which was seized by the Police vide Memo Ex. PW3/A and therefore, the trial court committed an error in not accepting in evidence document Ex. P-1 which was a suicide note left behind by the deceased.
9. I do not find much force in the submission of the learned APP for the State. The trial court did not accept Ex. P-1 as sufficient evidence against the accused persons for two reasons; firstly the prosecution failed to produce any corroborative evidence to prove that letter Ex. P-1 was written by deceased Sanjeev and secondly this letter was not Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 5 of 15 recovered by the family members on the date of the incident from the spot but on the next following day. This letter was produced by PW3 Raman Bansal and handed over to the Investigating Officer on 13.3.2008. Bare perusal of document Ex. P-1 makes it clear that this letter is purported to have been signed by Sanjeev Bansal and was not written at the time when the signatures were apportioned on it. There is a considerable space between the written contents of the note and the signature appearing at the bottom of the same. There is enough space wherein something more could be incorporated. Admittedly no complaint was made to the Police even after the recovery of this letter, though Police was informed when deceased was removed to the hospital by the complainant and other family members. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer did not collect any other letter written by the deceased or admitted handwriting or signatures of the deceased on any document during the investigation of the case, though it has come in evidence that deceased used to write letters to his Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 6 of 15 brother Raman Bansal as well as to his parents. The Investigating Officer did not send Ex. P-1 along with admitted handwriting and signatures of the deceased for handwriting expert opinion. Even if Ex. P-1 was written by the deceased soon before his death, there was no evidence available on the record for the trial court to assess and reach to a conclusion that this letter was written by deceased Sanjeev Bansal. Intriguingly, this letter was addressed to the Magistrate, Bombay High Court. If that was so, why this letter was not dispatched goes unexplained. This casts a cloud on the prosecution case and possibility is that this letter probably was never written at Delhi nor was recovered as alleged. Besides this letter is not indicative of the fact that deceased was abetted to and driven by accused Ashu, his wife, to commit suicide.
10. Under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act, if a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 7 of 15 document must be proved to be in that person's handwriting. Opinion of handwriting expert is relevant so as to enable the Court to form an opinion as to the person by whom questioned document was written or signed. Letter Ex. P-1 was not written by the deceased in the presence of Raman Bansal. Prosecution did not take any expert opinion to establish that letter Ex. P1 was written by the deceased.
11. Learned APP for the State has submitted that the requirement of Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act is only that the handwriting must be proved to be that of the person concerned and in order to prove the identity of the handwriting, any mode accepted by law can be resorted to. He has referred to Gulzar Ali v. State of H.P. - (1998) 2 SCC 192.
12. Proposition of law as laid down in the said case is not in dispute.
13. Two modes accepted by law are indicated in Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 8 of 15 Section 45 permits expert opinion to be regarded as relevant evidence and Section 47 permits opinion of any person acquainted with such handwriting to be regarded as relevant evidence.
14. In this case as discussed above, prosecution has not been able to bring on record convincing corroborative evidence to prove that Ex. P-1 was written by the deceased. Why the letter could not be traced out on the date of the incident when Investigating Officer had gone to the residence of the complainant and searches were made; why this letter could be recovered only on the next following day and why no complaint was lodged with the police despite recovery of the letter, are all unexplained factors which create a reasonable grave doubt in the mind of the court if at all this letter was written and signed by the deceased, specially when no other document written or signed by the deceased was handed over to the Police during the investigation of the case. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, even the Court could not exercise its power under Section Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 9 of 15 73 of the Evidence Act and compare the disputed handwriting and signatures with the admitted handwriting and signatures in order to ascertain whether the signature or the handwriting on Ex. P- 1 was that of the deceased.
15. Deceased was not having cordial relationship with his wife since after his marriage. He had left Bombay on 8.3.1998. He committed suicide on 12.3.1998 i.e. after four days of his coming to Delhi.
16. The trial court observed that PW4 Kaushalya Devi, mother of the deceased, who had narrated the alleged threat extended by Ashu Bansal on telephone on the fateful day could not be believed because there was no mention of any such phone call made by accused Ashu Bansal in the FIR. PW3 Raman Bansal in his statement Ex. PW18/C had stated that he was told by his brother that he had come to Delhi to his parents from Bombay for reconciliation with Ashu. He had also stated that nobody was to be blamed for the said incident. Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 10 of 15 The complaint was made thereafter about one month and ten days of the incident i.e. on 21.4.1998 and FIR was registered after about more than two months of the incident on 22.5.1998.
17. As regards jewellery etc. accused Ashu Bansal being wife had full right to take her jewellery and other valuables being her istridhan from the deceased even when she was residing with him. Accused Jagdish Chand Gupta had taken away the jewellery and other valuables from the deceased on 18.11.1997. Therefore, this could not have been a cause for Sanjeev to commit suicide.
18. Learned APP for the State has submitted that it is not material that complaint was not made initially on the date of the occurrence keeping in mind that the family was in mental shock and therefore, the delay in lodging of the FIR is not fatal to the case. These submissions are devoid of any merits.
19. Police was informed of the incident on the same day and the Investigating Officer had gone to the hospital and found the dead body of Sanjeev lying Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 11 of 15 in the hospital, post-mortem was got conducted on the dead body, the family was indeed in its frame of mind to lodge an FIR alleging that Sanjeev was abetted by his wife to commit suicide. The Police could have been informed of the alleged telephone call received from Ashu Bansal and threats extended by her on telephone to Kaushalya Devi as well as to the deceased.
20. It also weighed in the mind of the trial court that deceased was in the protective company of his parents. After receipt of threats from his wife on telephone, he sat with his mother for quite some time before retiring to his room and he had sufficient time with him to share his grief with his mother. Rightly so, because a person is prone to commit suicide on spur of a moment when he is unable to fight with his depression or emotional turmoil or acute sense of insecurity or alleged instigation which might drive him to commit suicide. If the crucial moment is fought and won over or passes away mental and emotional capabilities as well as rationality in thought retreat Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 12 of 15 and a person thinks twice before taking drastic step to commit suicide. Deceased had enough time to overcome his shaken and upheavaled feelings and rippled emotions because of threats allegedly received from his wife on telephone. He was not apprehending immediate danger to his life at the hands of any of the accused persons who were at Bombay at the relevant time. The mere fact that deceased was maltreated by his wife would not create such circumstance which would have made deceased to end his life and any such maltreatment or ill-treatment at the hands of the wife at Bombay under no circumstances would amount to abetment within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC.
21. The trial court referred to all the circumstances including letter Ex. P-1 highlighting the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence while directing acquittal of the accused persons.
22. The appellate court generally should not interfere with an order of acquittal keeping in mind the fact that presumption of innocence of the accused is Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 13 of 15 further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view favouring the accused is to be adopted. It is the duty of the Court to keep in mind that miscarriage of justice is prevented. The Court should only interfere in the order of acquittal when it is of the view that there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is apparently unreasonable and relevant and convincing evidence has been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, the Court has compelling reason to interfere therein.
23. In this case neither the judgment shows any unreasonability in assessment of the evidence and other material available on record, nor the Court has ignored any convincing material on record which could raise a finger towards the guilt of the accused persons.
Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 14 of 15
24. The trial court has précised its opinion in para 7 of the judgment in detail to reach to a conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt i.e. Sanjeev had committed suicide on the instigation of the accused persons.
25. Admittedly there is no specific immediate incident which could directly relate to commission of suicide by the deceased as the earlier incidents could at best be the case of cruelty but not of abetment. I find no illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court. Hence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
26. The trial court record be sent back.
27. Attested copy of the order be sent to the trial court.
(ARUNA SURESH) JUDGE January 16, 2009 jk Crl.L.P. No. 54/2004 Page 15 of 15