Kachra Bai vs The State Of M.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 5237 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                        NAFR


            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         CRA No. 2008 of 2000
                     Order reserved on : 21/06/2022
                    Order delivered on : 18/08/2022
      Kachra Bai, W/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
       Boerdih, P.S. Deori, District- Durg, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh).
                                                               ---- Appellant
                                    Versus
      State of Madhya Pradesh, through the Police Station- Deori,
       District- Durg, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh).
                                                           ---- Respondent

For Appellant                   :         Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For Respondent/State            :         Mr. Vinod Tekam, P.L.

                  Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                                CAV Order
18.08.2022

1. Present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District-Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 210/1999 whereby, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-

            Conviction                              Sentence
     Under Section 306 of IPC                    R.I. for 7 years

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.02.1999, there was some hot talk took place between the appellant/accused and his daughter-in- law- Laxmi Bai (deceased) on account of that deceased was not cooking the food. It is alleged by the prosecution that on account of altercation took place between the appellant and the deceased, deceased poured kerosene on her and setting herself ablaze. Thereafter, she was taken to Dondilohara hospital by her husband

Kamlesh (P.W.-2) and his father Kalyan Singh (P.W.-1). Bhikam Lal (PW-5) has lodged the report (Ex.P/7) at Police Station. Dr. S.S. Devdas (PW-8) has examined the deceased and found 100% burn injury. Y.R. Tumrame (P.W.-4) has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex.P/6 and another dying declaration Ex.P/9 was recorded by Dr. S.S. Devdas (P.W.-8), thereafter, he has referred the deceased to district hospital, Durg for further treatment. Husband of the deceased Kamlesh (P.W.-2) took his wife- Laxmi Bai (deceased), to Rajnandgoan hospital where she has died during the course of the treatment. At about 7:00, P.M., merg intimation was given at Police Station- Basantpur. G.P. Choudhary, Additional Tehsildar went to the hospital and prepared Laash Panchnama Ex.P-4. Dr. Smt. S. Khare (P.W.-15) performed the post-mortem of the deceased along with Dr. Rajesh Sharma. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against her and charges were framed under Section 306 of IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case and statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which she denied the charges levelled against her and pleaded her innocence and false implication in the case.

4. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, and sentenced her as mentioned in para 1. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has erred in law and also in facts while convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. None of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution as far as the allegation for abetment to commit suicide is concerned and the material available on record does not make a case punishable under Section 306 of IPC. Dying declaration is also recorded by PW-4 and PW-8 and also suffers from serious doubts and cannot be relied upon. On perusal of the

medical examination of the deceased, it is clear that she had suffered 100% burn injuries and her pulse rate was 20 per minute and at such circumstances, the dying declaration could not have been recorded, therefore, the learned court below ought to have concerned that the deceased was not in a fit state of mind to have given the so called dying declaration. Not a single witness has stated against the appellant which shows that she in any manner, has abetted the deceased to commit suicide, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Velladurai v. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SCC Online SC 715.

6. Learned State counsel has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Kalyan Singh (PW-1) has stated that he does not know why Laxmi Bai has committed suicide and husband of the deceased i.e. Kamlesh (P.W.-2) has also stated that after 10 months of marriage, without any reason, his wife has committed suicide by pouring kerosene.

9. Y.R. Tumrame (PW-4) has stated that he has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased vide Ex.P/6 in which she has stated that,

"vkt fnukad 24&2&99 dks lqcg 8 cts ?kj esa dksbZ ugh Fkk rks eS vius cnu ij feV~Vh rsy Mkydj [kqn vkx yxkbZ gwW esjs ifjokj ds fdlh Hkh lnL; esjs Åij vkx ugh yxkbZ gS eSa Loa; vius mij feV~Vh rsy Mkydj ekfpl dh rhyh ls vkx yxkbZ gwW vkt lqcg 24&2&99 dks 7 vkSj 8 cts ds chp esjs lkl ls fookn gqvk xkscj Fkksius ds uke ij fookn gqvkA xkscj Fkksi dj vkdj rqe [kkuk ugh cuk jgh gks djds fookn gqvk ckrks &ckrks esa fookn gqvk lkl us fdlh Hkh gfFk;kj ls okj ugha fd;kA

'kknh ds ckn ls vkt fnukad rd esjs ifr ;k esjs lkl ls fookn ugh gqvk FkkA vkt gh lqcg esjs lkl ls fookn gqvk blh ds ckn eSusa Loa; vius 'kjhj ij vkx yxk yhA eSa ;g c;ku fcuk fdlh ncko ds ns jgh gwW tks lR; gS A "

10. Dr. S.S. Devdas (PW-8) has also stated that in her dying

declaration, Laxmi Bai (deceased) has also stated that,

" Between 7.00 - 8.00 A.M., there was a dispute with her mother-in-law over the application of cow dung. Thereafter, quarrel took place between them, on which she herself put kerosene and setting her ablaze."

11. Looking to the statement of the witnesses and dying declaration vide Ex. P/6 & Ex. P/9, it is clear that before the date of incident, relation of the appellant and deceased were cordial and on the date of incident, quarrel took place for not cooking the food.

Section 306 of IPC reads as under:-

Abetment of suicide.--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.

Section 107 of IPC reads as under:-

Abetment of a thing.--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 the doing of that 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.

12. Looking to the statement of all witnesses and dying declarations vide Ex.P/6 & Ex. P/9, abetment of any manner by the appellant under Section 107 of IPC is not proved.

13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Velladurai Vs. State (2021 SCC Online SC 715) has held that in para 14 is as under:-

"Now so far as the offence under Section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC."

14. Therefore, it is clear that abetment by a person is when a person instigate another to do something but in the present case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the date of occurrence, there is no other material on record which indicates the

abetment by the appellant. There is no material available on record that the appellant/accused has played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material available on record which indicates the abetment. The learned trial court has committed an error in convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

16. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2000 is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. She is reported to be on bail and her bail bond shall stand discharged.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey) JUDGE

Ruchi