Harbans Lal And Anr. vs State
2006 Latest Caselaw 511 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. Anita w/o Rajesh Sethi fell down from the roof of the house of her husband on 24.11.2000 at around 10.15 p.m. She expired in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 22.1.2001. On the statement of her father FIR bearing No.590/2000 under section 498-A IPC was registered at P.S. Hari Nagar on 24.11.2000. On the death of Anita section 306 IPC was added to the FIR. The case was eventually committed to Sessions. Smt. Bimla Makin, Additional Sessions Judge (in short `ASJ') observed that a prima facie case was made out against Rajesh Sethi, the husband, and Harbans Lal Sethi, the father-in-law, of offence under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC'). The learned ASJ further observed that no offence was made out against the other accused persons in the case who were the mother- in-law and brother-in-law. It was observed in her order that evidence collected by the prosecution was not sufficient to frame a charge of abetment to suicide. Since the offence under section 498-A was friable only by a Metropolitan Magistrate, the case file was remanded to the Metropolitan Magistrate. This order is challenged by Harbans Lal and Rajesh in Crl.Rev.P.No.872/2003 seeking discharge even for the offence under section 498-A IPC. The father of Anita, namely, Hari Ram, on the other hand, has come up with Crl.Rev.P.No.112/2004 praying that all the accused in the case be charged with the offence of abetment to suicide as well as of cruelty punishable under sections 306/498-A/34 IPC. The present order will dispose of both the revision petitions.

2. Anita (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was married to Rajesh Sethi in the year 1987. The death took place 13 years after the marriage. The statement of the father of the deceased makes a general allegation of harassment of the deceased by all the accused, namely, the parents-in-law, husband and brother-in- law. Coming to specific allegation he says that the husband of Anita, Rajesh, used to say that Anita was not of his standard and did not know how to adjust in the society. Mentioning one instance of 7 years back he says that his daughter Anita was brought to his house by his son-in-law Rajesh and his father-in-law, Harbans Lal and they both abused Anita in his presence. He makes other allegation that the deceased used to tell him about being beaten and taunted by the accused and that despite the fact that he used to give Rs.10-15,000/- in cash to Anita whenever she visited his house there was no change in the behavior of her in-laws. There was no categorical allegation about any demand of dowry although he says that he himself tried to purchase a flat for his son- in-law but did not succeed because of paucity of funds. Coming to the incident of 24.11.2000 he says that at around 9.40 p.m. he received phone call from Rajesh complaining that a silly and uneducated girl had been tied to him and that she be taken away from his house. He says further that he heard loud voices of shouting as the in-laws were abusing Anita. Rajesh cut off the phone after saying the words mentioned above. While the complainant was still pondering over the matter, he says, he received another phone call from Rajeev, brother of Rajesh, informing that Anita had fallen from the roof and had suffered various injuries and was being taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on which he also reached the hospital. He held all of them responsible for Anita's condition.

3. There is no direct evidence of suicide or homicide but it is common ground that Anita fell from the roof and subsequently succumbed to her injuries. There was a parapet wall with a height of 35 inches and width of 8.5 inches. It is very unlikely that a person can fall from the roof by accident despite the protection of such a parapet wall. In view of the sequences as described, prima facie, it is a case of a suicide. The court can, therefore, proceed to see whether the investigation has been able to make out a case of instigation for committing a suicide.

4. The conversation overheard by the father of the deceased indicates that the husband of the deceased Rajesh had expressed in no uncertain terms that she has no place in the house any more. He asked the father to take her away. The other people in the family were also heard shouting and abusing Anita. The father further says that while he was still pondering over the matter he received the second telephone call informing him that Anita had fallen from the roof. It appears that Anita attempted suicide being instigated by the words of Rajesh indicating his refusal to let her remain in the house. The facts of this case are very akin to the case of Brij Lal v. Prem Chand and Anr. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 680 in which the wife committed suicide shortly after her husband, who had been insisting on dowry, said that money was more important to him than her life and that if she wanted to die she could do so. The Supreme Court interpreted the act of the husband as an instigation to commit suicide. It said, 'it is not a case where Veena Rani (the deceased in that case) had wanted to commit suicide for reasons of her own and the accused had facilitated her in commission of suicide'. In the present case Anita did not commit suicide of her own. She was driven to commit suicide on account of the words of her husband asking her father to take her away as she was not worthy of him. Accordingly there was instigation for committing suicide and a charge under section 306 IPC should have been framed against Rajesh.

5. The judgment of this court in the case of Smt. Mamta Sahu v. The State (NCT of Delhi) is cited by the Rajesh and Harbans Lal. In the case of Mamta Sahu (Supra) the husband had committed suicide a couple of hours after the husband and wife had a quarrel. The quarrel had settled down and both had gone to sleep. The quarrel was over what the brother of wife was believed to have said about the husband. The wife had been defending her brother by denying the allegations against him. The husband prevented the wife from leaving the house on that night. However, after both had gone to sleep the husband woke up and consumed poison and died after a prolonged illness. It was held by this court that the wife was not guilty of instigating suicide. The facts of that case are entirely different inasmuch as wife did not do any act of instigating in any way. All that she did was to defend her brother. Quarrel by itself could not be an instigation. This case is clearly distinguishable.

6. Several judgments have been cited by Rajesh and Harbans Lal, i.e., the accused, in support of their plea that no case under section 306 IPC is made out. They are all on their peculiar facts which are not parallel to the facts of the present case and, therefore, render no assistance to this court. It is to be remembered that at the stage of charge the court cannot make an indepth analysis of the facts of the case. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh said that if the scales of pan 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 under section 228 of Cr.P.C., then in such a situation ordinarily and generally the order which will have to be made will be one under section 228 Cr.P.C. and not under section 227 Cr.P.C. In this situation charge u/s 306 IPC has to be framed against Rajesh.

7. So far as charge under section 498A is concerned, the Addl. Sessions Judge has discharged all accused except Rajesh and Harbans Lal. The evidence on the basis of which such charge is framed has also been discussed by the Sessions Judge. The evidence collected by the investigation include beating by the husband and father-in-law in the presence of the complainant, abuses hurled at her and general maltreatment and harassment by husband Rajesh. In presence of such evidence there cannot be a discharge in respect of the offence under section 498A IPC. Whether that evidence is sufficient to convict the accused of the offences under section 498A will have to be examined only at the conclusion of trial. Even the last incident leading to the suicide suggests cruelty of a high degree.

8. So far as the other accused are concerned, the main witness relied upon by the prosecution is Sunita who is the wife of the brother of the deceased. The relevant portion in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is that soon after the marriage, the family of the husband of the deceased (Sasuralwale) used to demand a flat and used to beat her. Further she says that whenever the deceased came to her parents house, she was reluctant to return to her matrimonial home. As per this witness, the persons who wanted dowry were Rajesh, Rajeev, Harbans Lal and Swarankanta. There is no specific statement as to who of the in-laws in house used to beat her to assert demand for dowry. The allegation that all the four accused used to make a demand for flat is repeated in the statement of Preeti who is wife of another brother of the deceased. The mother of the deceased, Smt. Raj Kumari, also made a similar statement mentioning generally the demand made by the family of Rajesh. No specific allegation of harassment of any kind except in respect of Rajesh and his father, Harbans Lal, is made by her in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the trial court was right in framing charge under section 498A of IPC only against Rajesh and Harbans Lal.

9. Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the Harbans Lal and Rajesh bearing Crl.Rev.P.No.872/2003 Is dismissed and the revision petition filed by the complainant Hari Ram bearing Crl.Rev.P.No.112/2004 is allowed in part. The Magistrate will return the file to the Additional Sessions Judge who will frame the charges as per this order.