Raman Mahajan vs State
2011 Latest Caselaw 5441 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           RESERVED ON: OCTOBER 21, 2011
                                        PRONOUNCED ON: NOVEMBER 14, 2011

+                    CRL. APPEAL NO. 145/1998

RAMAN MAHAJAN                                            ..... Appellant
                              Through: Mr. Anil Kr. Choudhary, Advocate with Mr.
                                       Raman Mahajan and Ms. Mohini Mahajan in
                                       person.

                     versus
STATE                                               ..... Respondent

Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja and Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP for the State.

                              AND

+                             CRL. APPEAL NO. 175/1999

STATE                                                ..... Appellant
                              Through: Mr.M.N.Dudeja and Ms.Richa Kapoor, APP for
                                       the State.
                     versus

RAMAN MAHAJAN & ANR                      ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. A.K. Chaudhary and Anil Kr. Choudhary,
                            Advocates with Mr.Raman Mahajan and Ms.
                            Mohini Mahajan in person

CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers
      may be allowed to see the judgment?                Yes

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?                 Yes

3.    Whether the judgment should be                     Yes
      reported in the Digest?



MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI



 %

1. The love marriage between Raman Mahajan (hereafter „Raman‟) and Vandana (deceased) was unlike the one, we read in the newspaper i.e. protest from the families, elopement and honour killing. This love story had hardly any twist as despite the fact that deceased Vandana was studying in 12th standard in the year 1988 and her younger sister in 10th standard, Raman Mahajan was a student of only 9th standard, younger to Vandana by about two years. In the year 1988 itself, they intended to marry without waiting to attain the statutory age of marriage. Here the only advisory was from Raman‟s parents to at least attain the age of majority and to complete his education so as to be self reliant and able to bear his responsibilities.

2. Apparently Vandana was too eager to enter into matrimony and wanted social recognition of their relationship resulting in their engagement ceremony on 09.05.1989 when Raman was less than 16½ years of age. The marriage was solemnized on 18.11.1991 after Raman attained the age of majority and the couple was blessed with son within a year of marriage. The relationship between the two seemed to be like that of any other married couple with a certain degree of immaturity and incompatibility which can be inferred from the last diary entry written by the deceased. In that diary entry (dated 16.07.1992) she has expressed her feelings that nobody had time for her and even the new arrival i.e. her son has not brought any happiness in her life. There was nothing abnormal till then in this relationship barring Raman‟s drinking habits which he appears to have been initiated into by his in-laws (who used to offer him drinks on his visits to them). The photographs showing Raman Mahajan having drinks with his father-in-law, both in a good mood reflect this.

3. Vandana had gone to her parents in the second week of August, 1993 and returned to her matrimonial home on 16.08.1993. On 17.08.1993 in the morning she committed suicide by hanging. Her in-laws immediately informed her parents as well as the police. Since it was a case of unnatural death by a married woman within seven years of her marriage, the SDM was informed and inquest proceedings were held. As per the prosecution, six papers Ex.PW1/D1 to D6 which (included five letters and one good wishes page) were recovered from the person of deceased and a Diary was lying near her body. The SDM handed over all papers to the Investigating Officer who seized them by

memo Ex.PW7/F; the body was sent for postmortem. On the basis of the statement made by Smt. Premlata Anand - mother of the deceased, before the SDM, a case under Section 498-A/304-B IPC at PS Anand Vihar was registered against the accused Raman and his mother Mohini Mahajan for causing „dowry death‟. During investigation, the statement of Sh. Mangat Ram Anand - Vandana‟s father, Ms. Payal Anand - sister of Vandana and other relatives were recorded and after completion of investigation, both the Appellants were sent to face trial for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A/304-B IPC.

4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after framing of charge, 14 witnesses were produced by the prosecution in support of its case. PW-1 to PW-3 i.e. parents and sister of the deceased deposed about she being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law for not bringing sufficient dowry and treating her with cruelty.

5. Statement of both the Appellants under Sec. 313 CrPC before Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge were that it was not a case of dowry death, and instead PW-3 Payal was in love with Raman (indicated from the letters written by her to him even after marriage and seized by the SDM from the undergarment (Bra) of deceased Vandana). In some of letters, she was using the threatening language even to the extent of taking "extreme step" (presumably suicide). It was further stated by accused Raman that there was one letter in the form of suicide note by Vandana where she mentioned that she was creating space for her younger sister Payal and her son Tanay would be looked after by the latter as her son. But this letter was allegedly destroyed, as it did not help the prosecution to prove dowry death. He also stated that the letter Ex.D1 to D16 written by Payal after his marriage as well as the diary written by the deceased Vandana before and after marriage clearly suggested that she was not subjected to any harassment or ill-treatment for purpose of dowry at any stage or before the occurrence. All family functions were properly attended by the parents and sister of deceased Vandana and that Raman too attended the functions held in Vandana‟s family and he used to visit his in-laws with his wife. Raman‟s mother in her bank account, nominated deceased Vandana as nominee and not him or his sister and an account was also opened in the name of their son Tanay under the guardianship of deceased Vandana into which she deposited sums of money. Raman, therefore, claimed to be innocent and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.

6. Mohini Mahajan also made statement on identical lines and placed on record three

letters Mark-X, Y & Z at the fag end of the trial, to bring on record the reasons for suicide by deceased Vandana i.e. deep love of PW-3 Payal also for Raman Mahajan and her inability to reconcile the situation that Raman Mahajan belonged to her sister.

7. Four defence witnesses were examined i.e. DW-1 Sh. Ashok Bansal, Clerk from Punjab & Sind Bank regarding account. DW-2, Sh. Madan Lal Mahajan, father of the accused Raman Mahajan who stated about the occurrence, immediate action thereafter i.e. informing the parents of deceased and police and recovery of letters and suicide note further mentioning the cause of suicide by Vandana and destruction of suicide note by the police though it was recovered in the presence of the SDM. DW-3 Sh. Prabhu Dayual and DW-4 Sh. Ishwar Dass Kapoor were examined to prove that in their presence the SDM informed about the contents of the papers recovered from the deceased as well as the diary and that a suicide note was also recovered.

8. After considering all the material evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found that this was not a case of „dowry death‟ and that there was no dowry demand at all in this case. The testimony of all material witnesses i.e. PW-1 to 3 i.e parents and sister of the deceased in this regard was held to contain improvements. It was held also despite the fact that deceased returned from her parents‟ house only on 16.08.1993, and that she took extreme step the next morning, at that time or even before the SDM or subsequently thereafter, no dowry demand was ever alleged in any statement to the police, and that the demand for dowry was stated only during the testimony before Court. Thus, disbelieving the testimony of material witnesses, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellants of the charges under Sec.304-B IPC. However, based on certain diary entries made by the deceased, it was held that not allowing her to talk to her parents or visit them, amounted to mental cruelty, Raman was convicted under Sec.498-A IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and also to pay a fine. However, Mohini Mahajan was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the charge under Sec.498-A IPC.

9. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Raman Mahajan preferred Criminal Appeal No.145/98. The State also felt aggrieved from the impugned order due to acquittal of Mohini Mahajan in the case as well as acquittal of Raman Mahajan of the charge under Sec.304-B IPC. It also preferred a criminal petition in which leave to appeal was granted on 06.04.1999. Since the appeal had been filed by

the State as well as by Raman Mahajan, hereinafter Appellant State will be referred as to „State‟ and the Respondents therein i.e. Raman & Mohini would be referred to by their names.

10. On behalf of State Sh. M.N. Dudeja and Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP have urged that a case of dowry death of a young bright girl was proved. It was argued that Vandana was an intelligent girl and graduated in English (Hon) from a reputed college of Delhi University and was a topper. She fell in love with Raman who was a school drop-out not matching her caliber and intelligence; Raman was also in the habit of drinking and misbehaving with his wife. He used to spend time with his friends, leading to loneliness and isolation of the deceased; also during the subsistence of marriage for about two years, she was neither allowed to visit her parents nor talk to them on phone or mobile phone. She was taken to her parents twice by Raman Mahajan and throughout he remained with her thus giving no time to her to communicate with her parents about her hardships.

11. It was submitted that in this modern age a young educated girl who studied in a public school and then in a reputed college of Delhi University in English (Hon), could not bear such kind of mental cruelty and oppression and was compelled to take the extreme step of suicide. It was urged that although learned ASJ found that there was no dowry demand by Raman and Mohini and acquitted them of the charges under Sec.304-B IPC but failed to appreciate that a young girl committed suicide because of the cruelty meted out to her by her husband and mother-in-law. It was further submitted that when there was sufficient material on record about the mental cruelty and harassment caused to deceased Vandana, with the aid of Sec.113-A of Indian Evidence Act, the presumption could have been drawn that Raman and his mother Mohini abetted the commission of suicide and on the basis of the material on record they could have been convicted under Sec.498-A and under Sec. 306 IPC. The State has relied upon K. Prema Rao and Anr vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors AIR 2003 SC 11, Dalbir Singh vs. State of U.P. (Appeal (Crl) 479 of 1999) decided on 08.04.2004; Dinesh Seth vs State of NCT of Delhi (Crl. Appeal No.1239 of 2003) decided on 18.8.2008; Shamnsaheb M. Multtani vs State of Karnataka 2001 AIR (SC) 921; Pawan Kumar & Ors vs State of Haryana decided by the Apex Court on 9.02.1998; Brij Lal vs. Prem Chand & Anr. Decided by the Apex Court on 20.04.1989 (Equivalent citation 1989 AIR 1661, 1989 SCR (2) 612); Dinesh Mehta vs the

State (NCT of Delhi) decided by Delhi High Court on 06.06.2007 (Equivalent citation 2007 CriLJ 3834); Gananath Pattnaik vs State of Orissa JT 2002 (1)SC 608 in support of their contentions to say that though charged under Section 304-B IPC, the accused could be convicted for another offence on the basis of evidence led.

12. On behalf of Raman and Mohini, it was submitted that date of birth of deceased Vandana, her sister Payal and that of Raman as well as the date of engagement and marriage are crucial to arrive at just decision. It was pointed out that in 1988 when Vandana was a student of 12th standard, PW3 Payal of 10th standard and Raman was a child studying in 9th standard and much younger to the two sisters. Even as per the prosecution the marriage proposal came through in the year 1988 when Raman was just 16 years of age; he admittedly belonged to an affluent family residing in Ram Vihar and was the only son of his parents. It was further submitted that for the sake of the children‟s happiness, Raman‟s parents performed the engagement ceremony on 09.05.1989 and later, the marriage took place on 18.11.1991. On 16.07.1992 a son was born to couple. It was further submitted that no doubt a young girl had died but at the same time it ought not to be ignored that there is a conclusive finding by the Trial court that it was not a case of „dowry demand‟ or „dowry death‟. The marriage was simple, performed during the day time with no demands ever made at any point of time. Not only that, the deceased paid Rs. 50,000/- from proceeds of shares which were in the name of deceased, (which were sold for about Rs.47,000/-) by cheque to her father, and the amount was never paid to or demanded by Raman or his family. That circumstance was used by the prosecution to say that the amount was demanded for marriage of Geeta, sister of Raman which is patently false in view of the statement of PW1 to PW3. It was further submitted that the deceased returned from her parents‟ house on 16.08.1992 and it is admitted by PW3 Payal @ Minny that she was frequent visitor to the house of Raman i.e. at least once in a month; Raman too used to stay at their house, go to his work from there and return for lunch and leave for his work again, later. This was sufficient to establish that Vandana had enough time to spend with her parents and if there were anything wrong, she had sufficient opportunity to talk to her parents or sister in that regard. Counsel for Raman and Mohini further submitted that the bunch of photographs placed on record show how happy Vandana was during her married life with Raman

Mahajan; both families used to attend the functions of each other‟s relatives also. This was sufficient to demolish the prosecution case that Vandana was not allowed to visit her parents or talk to them. Counsel has referred to various letters written by Payal @ Minny not only to Raman but also to her sister which either reflect her deep love for Raman or feeling of loneliness after her sister got married and that they became busy in their lives without caring for her emotions. Attention has been drawn to the various letters admittedly written by PW3 Payal @ Minny to Raman expressing her deep love for him and her aroused intention to commit suicide if her feelings were not reciprocated by him. It is further contended that a suicide note was left by deceased Vandana to the effect that she was creating place for her sister who would marry Raman and also take care of her son but that note was destroyed by the Investigating Officer as it did not suit the prosecution. This fact can be inferred from the seizure memo Ex.PW7/F which refers to six letters but only five letters and one „good wishes‟ page have been produced. It has been submitted that the recovery of letters Ex.PW1/D1 to D6 from the body of deceased Vandana by the SDM is sufficient to gather the cause of suicide cannot be attributed to the Appellants. He has prayed for acquittal of Raman for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC as he loved his wife deeply and never caused her physical or mental cruelty.

13. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also had the benefit of the trial court records. The letters written by PW3 Payal @ Minny to Raman Mahajan and her sister as well as the deceased‟s diary have been thoroughly gone through to have an insight into the matrimonial life of Vandana as to what could have prompted her to take the extreme step leaving her infant son and further, the effect of the letters by Payal @ Minny, in this case, and if they possibly induced the deceased to take her life.

14. First we would like to deal with the contentions of State. So far as the findings of Trial Court that it was not a case of dowry death is concerned, there is not much challenge to the finding except to the extent that there was enough material on record to convict Raman Mahajan and Mohini Mahajan under Sec.498-A IPC and on the basis of presumption which could be drawn under Sec.113-A of Indian Evidence Act, both were liable to be convicted under Sec.306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. There is no dispute that Vandana died unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with the

allegation of mental cruelty being caused to her. A careful reading of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 all reveal that in material particulars, they are discrepant, and do not corroborate each other about the allegations of dowry-related harassment soon before Vandana‟s death. More importantly, the testimonies about demands are vague, unspecific and crucially, all improvements upon the statements concededly recorded by them during police investigations. Every one of these improvements were material, and they were confronted during cross-examination. Consequently, the depositions do not stand the test of credibility and trustworthiness. We are therefore unpersuaded by the State‟s submissions in this regard, and are of the opinion that applying the standards of appellate review in criminal cases, no substantial or compelling reasons have been made out, meriting reversal of the Appellants acquittal by the Trial Court, on the charge of committing the offence under Section 304-B IPC.

15. The limited question however to be decided is whether the deceased Vandana was treated with cruelty to the extent that she committed suicide. There is no dispute that she was not subjected to any physical cruelty but not permitting her to visit or to talk to her parents amounted to mental cruelty which that young girl of modern age was unable to bear. Not only that, the drinking habits of her husband and neglect by him also caused mental agony to her and this is sufficient to convict them under Sec. 306 IPC by drawing the presumption under Sec.113-A of Indian Evidence Act. The contention of the State regarding the mental cruelty caused to the deceased is to be looked into to find out whether the act attributed are sufficient to bring the same within the meaning of „cruelty‟ as defined under Sec.498-A IPC. All the letters admittedly written by PW3 Payal @ Minny after the marriage are sufficient to establish on record that not only Raman was a frequent visitor to his in-laws, but also that the deceased was also spending considerable time with her family and even just before her death, stayed there for about a week. PW3 Payal @ Minny admittedly was a frequent visitor to her sister‟s house (at least once a month) and almost everything used to be shared on phone or through letters addressed either to Raman and Vandana jointly or to Raman. So the contention of the State that she was not allowed to visit her parents or talk to them on phone or otherwise, is falsified by the record.

16. So far as deceased being topper in English (Hon) and Raman Mahajan being school dropped out is concerned, that has hardly any relevance since from day one Vandana knew that she was in love with a boy much younger in age and if the engagement and marriage were performed when Raman Mahajan had not even attained the marriageable age, he could not be blamed for being less educated.

As far as drinking habits, spending more time with friends or coming late at home are concerned, those are not sufficient to convict accused for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC. It would not be out of place to notice here that even as per the Diary entry at printed date 6th June, 1990, the deceased had written that Raman had drinks with her father. It has nowhere been deposed by PW-1 or PW-2 (parents of the deceased) that Raman Mahajan used to drink after bringing liquor to their house. If a young teenager is offered or initiated into liquor by his in-laws, later he cannot be blamed for such a habit. The Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 1998(1) Recent Criminal Report 581 SC observed that if husband takes liquor daily despite constant protest from wife and is into the habit of returning home late at night, it is insufficient to establish the initial ingredient of cruelty for the purpose of Sec.498-A IPC.

17. As regards the feelings of depression expressed in the diary on 16.07.1992 (or certain other instances where Vandana had mentioned about some quarrel between her and her husband), the marital discord or differences between husband and wife or any quarrel with in-laws would not by itself, without anything more be sufficient to attract the provisions of Sec.306 r/w 107 IPC. The burden of proof is not altered by Sec. 113-A of Indian Evidence Act, as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1994 SC 1418 State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and Anr. The material observations are as follows:-

"14. We are not oblivious that in a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of Section 498A, IPC and Section 113A of Indian Evidence Act."

18. In the context of whether the present case would make the husband and mother- in-law liable for abetment to commit suicide under Sec. 306 IPC, it would be useful to refer to the judgment in AIR 2004 SC 5097 Randhir Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab, where it was held as under :-

"12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing of that thing. More active role which can be described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing it required before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC.

13. In State of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal (AIR 1994 SC 1418) this Court has observed that the Courts should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."

19. Reverting to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that the deceased suffered mental cruelty at the hands of her husband or mother-in-law in their not permitting her to meet or talk to her parents, or the drinking habits of Raman Mahajan, such disputes and discord in the matrimonial home with the husband or in-laws would not by itself attract the provisions of Sec.306 r/w 107 IPC. The degree of cruel behaviour ought to be so chronic and persistent, as to have driven the deceased to take the extreme step. In this context, we also notice that unlike Section 113-B Evidence Act which mandates ("shall") a presumption against the accused in the case of unnatural death (Section 304-B IPC), Section 113-A enables the Court ("may") to draw a presumption if the death is suicidal, that it could be the result of abetment (Section 306). This distinction is significant and underlines that Courts have to take case and context based decisions, having regard to all surrounding circumstances

and proven facts. Latecoming, short of chronic neglect, or spending more time with friends, or even being fond of drinking are not sufficient to reasonably infer that the spouse in this case was driven to, or felt compelled by the helplessness of the circumstances to commit suicide. Correspondingly, the acts, both covert and oust of the Appellants have not been shown to possess the requisite intent to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that they were culpable and wanted Vandana (abet) to commit suicide.

20. Vandana committed suicide in the morning of 17.08.1992 and during inquest proceedings, letters Ex.PW1/D1 to D5 and one "Good wishes" note were recovered from her by the SDM and a diary was also lying on the bed. Here it is necessary to mention that deceased Vandana was in the habit of writing her diary which was of the year 1990. Generally she was not in the habit of recording dates for her entries and only exceptionally the dates appear in the document. To avoid any confusion, hereafter we would refer the dates, as printed on the Diary to ascertain what was possibly passing in the mind of Vandana before and after the marriage.

21. The Trial Court convicted Raman Mahajan for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A IPC on the basis of certain Diary entries specially written on the page dated 29.05.1990. Here, Vandana wrote that Tuesday is always a troubled day and the word „Mama‟ is fuel enough to lighten a fire in him (i.e. Raman) without paying any attention to this consequence and there is warrant issued for us. First of all there is nothing on record to suggest that deceased had any brother who could be referred as „Mama‟. Second, if the diary is read in sequence, what can be seen is that this part of the diary has been written prior to marriage, since, on the back of this page, (printed date 30.05.1990), Vandana said:

'It was a lovely day we spent nearly the entire day together, Three cheers to silky 5th birthday because of which we could spend a lovely evening together. Nearly from 9 AM to 1 AM (31st May) he was with us. Couldn't all days be such'.

On the next page dated 01.06.1990 she has written

'the very first day of the month we met, let us hope we meet everyday'.

Had she been married at that time and living as wife, Vandana could not have written that.

22. To have an insight into the life of the deceased after her marriage, entry in the Diary dated 24th June, 1990 reads as under:-

'We had our breakfast together. He stayed here for an hour or two and flew away. Oh how much I wish to spend a day with him. Just he and me. But he is indulging in business now a days. And the thought that the sooner he is settler, the shorter would be the gap between us bars me from forcing him to give a day of my choice.'

23. The above extract shows that Vandana craved for Raman‟s company. On the diary entry dated 10th July, 1990, she wrote 'I love you', and on the very next page she wrote 'unforgettable'.

24. On the next page dated 12th July, 1990, Vandana wrote that Minny told her something about him after hearing which she felt that he could do anything for her; she wrote 'I am so lucky to have him as life partner, May God bless us'.

Had there been any dowry demand or cruelty, she could not have written the above lines in her diary. About PW-3 Minny, Vandana wrote on the diary, on 30th March, 1990 that the beginning of the day was alright but it did not pass that way. Vandana referring to herself wrote that she misbehaved as usual and the beginning of the bad day started. In a further para, she wrote that she desired a good relationship between Minny and him, not because she will be benefited by that but

'Kyunki Mujhe Pata Hai Ki Usse Unse Bahut-Bahut Pyar Karti Hai. Wo Sach Mein Unko Apne Bhai Se Jyada Pyar Karti Hai, Par Pata Nahi Kyon Har Baar Koi Na Koi Aisi Bat Ho Jati Hai Jisse Uske Dil Mein Ek Aur Baat Baith Jati Hai Or Mujhe Yeh Samaz Mein Nahi Aata Ki Jab Wo Bhi Uski Inti Chinta Karte Hai To Wo Aise Batein Karti Hi Kyon Hai. Wo Kuch Batati Bhi Nahi Hai. Bas Sab Kuch Apne Dil Mein Chupaye Rakhti Hai or Ander Hi Ander Ghulti Rehti Hai.'

This shows that Vandana was under the impression that Minny‟s feelings towards Raman were akin to that for a brother. However, the letters Ex.PW-D1 to D6, Ex.PW3/D and Ex.PW1/D6 to 16 reveal otherwise. In all these letters, Minny expressed her deep

love for Raman so much so that she was finding it difficult to live without him, and even intended to take the extreme step of suicide. All these letters were admitted by PW-3 Payal @ Minny during her testimony before the court.

25. The mere fact that apart from her diary which was found lying on the bed, letters Ex.PW1/D-1 to D-6 were recovered from her person by the SDM and handed over to Investigating Officer, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/F, leads to only one conclusion that Vandana‟s belief (that the love of her sister for her husband was „brotherly‟) was shattered, on her coming across the letters written by PW3 to her husband. She could not bear that shock and took the extreme step of committing suicide on becoming aware of the contents of the letters written by her own sister to her husband expressing deep love for him and her inability to reconcile to the situation.

26. Mohini placed on record the letters written by PW-3 Payal @ Minny during her statement under Sec.313 CrPC which could not be put to PW-3 during her cross examination but after going through the other admitted letters as well letters Mark-X, Y & Z written by PW-3 to Raman, the same are in the same handwriting and in the same tenure. These letters can be looked into to lend credence to the defence version that cause of Vandana‟s suicide was not any mental or physical cruelty at the hands of her husband or mother-in-law but her inability to bear the shock that her sister too was in love with her husband. Here it is not out of place to mention that in the letters Mark-X, Y & Z, PW-3 Payal wrote about feelings of hatred, Raman had for her and his unresponsive attitude towards her feelings of love which made her so depressed that even she intended to commit suicide. She had written several times that after 17th "this" worthless girl (PW-3) would not bother him.

27. The writing on an envelope (seeking five minutes time), then the mention in the letter Ex.PW1/DX1 that she knew that she would never get those five minutes and would not trouble him again and again, further insisting for a short meeting, are sufficient to establish that Payal was deeply in love with Raman who, after marrying Vandana, did not encourage or fuel such feelings towards him. Despite being younger in age, he appears to have exercised restraint. The Minny‟s conduct mentioned in the deceased‟s diary, before as well as after the marriage and the letter Ex.PW1/DX3, where she (PW-3 Payal)

mentioned that as desired by Raman, she would never sit alone with him because whenever they sit like that, 'Main Apka Dimag Kharab Karti Hoon', and that she would not expect anything from him and try to keep him happy irrespective of the fact whether she remained happy or unhappy. She talks of some promises made saying 'Pyar Naam Ki Cheez Meri Zindagi Ka Kinara Chhoo Kar Nikalti Rahi Hai' and that 17th January would be the great day for him when he would get rid of this worthless girl and that after 17 th he would not there to hear her nonsense and at the bottom, she wrote 'Love Minny'. Again in Ex.PW1/DX4 she writes, „I love You'.

28. In the letter Ex.PW1/DX6 dated 31.01.1991, Minny wrote as under:-

'I wanted to tell you plenty of things but again the same old problem - you did not have time. Today, I will try to jot them down over here. You said you were tense because you love Vandana and you do not get enough time to meet her. And if I say I love you and I have not met you since an year or so would you agree that my tension is more than yours. Although you meet Vandana and you talk to her as long as you wish and above all she listens to you and still you feel unhappy. How do you think I feel when I meet you and you do not feel like talking to me. Do not you ever think how unhappy I am. You are at least sure of her love but as yet I am not able to decide whether you love me or not.' (The date of engagement is 09.05.1989 and date of marriage is 18.11.1991).

29. In another letter, Minny mentioned about Raman‟s hatred (to her) and referred to herself as 'mean'. All letters written by Minny to Raman and some of the letters recovered from the deceased by the SDM lead to only one conclusion that incompatibility between the Appellant and his wife, if any, because of their early marriage and lack of maturity was not the cause for her suicide. Instead the love expressed by Vandana‟s sister for her husband became unbearable to her. There was no reason for her to keep these letters Ex.PW1/D1 to D6 and her diary with her while committing suicide, on the bed. Ex.PW1/D1 to D6, it can be inferred reasonably the immediate and ultimate cause for her taking the extreme step of committing suicide. The Trial Court while dealing with the offence punishable under Sec.304-B IPC disbelieved the material prosecution witnesses including the parents and sister of the deceased regarding any dowry demand but recorded conviction under Sec .498-A IPC of Raman Mahajan, by adopting a myopic view of the contents of the dairy, ignoring what Vandana had written just on the back of

the page or on next page. The contents of the diary entry dated 16.07.1992 i.e. the day when Vandana gave birth to her son only disclosed her depressed state of mind but do not point to any act which can fall within the definition of cruelty for convicting an accused under Section 498-A IPC.

30. After going through the diary written by the deceased as well as the letters written by PW-3 Payal @ Minny, it can be inferred that PW-3 had deep love for Raman Mahajan; he exercised restraint and did not fuel or exploit her feelings. As a result, PW-3 developed suicidal tendencies. But before she could do that, Vandana (deceased) seems to have come across the letters written by her sister and in order to make way for her, took the decision to leave this world. Recovery of letters Ex.PW1/D1 to D6 which also include one letter written by some relation, makes it ample clear that she came across those letters by chance and after going through the contents of those letters written by PW-3 she decided to take the extreme step. These facts and circumstances of the case do not bring the case within the purview of either Section 498-A IPC or Section 306 IPC.

31. The findings of ld. Trial Court accepting the explanation given by PW-3 Payal @ Minny during her cross examination that she loved Raman Mahajan as she loved her father or uncle or any other close relation, are contrary to the feelings expressed by her in the various letters. The letters placed on record (from pages 1301 to 1313 of Trial Court Record) though not exhibited but undisputedly written by Minny and even some of them referred during course of hearing, reveal the relationship she wanted to have with the appellant which was not responded by him. While writing on an envelope (placed at page 1299 of the Trial Court Record) she asked Raman for five minutes of time to meet her if possible or tear the paper and throw it out of the window. The letter (placed at page No.1301 of Trial Court Record ) reveals that it was written just after half-an-hour after Raman left Payal's house despite an electricity cut. She wrote this letter in candle light; she mentions about Raman telling her that he hated her more than anyone and she would be the last person to whom he would like to talk. She however said that she was such a shameless creature that still she needed his love. She further wrote that after becoming a relative officially, love should have grown naturally between them but it has vanished

from her life. After making various promises in the letter not to trouble him again, why she begged for a few peaceful moments, the reasons given in her own words are :

'Just as a drinker or a smoker promises oneself that he won't drink any more but still he cannot stop himself when it is in front of him. In the same way, I promise myself that I won't try to force you to talk to me, but then again sometimes just like an addict of drugs, I am addict of you, I know whenever I will try to talk to you I will get more pain, more sorrow and more tears but still I come over to you just like a smoker smokes, although smoking is injurious to health. You said that day, you have given me enough of happiness and taken over a lot of my tensions (but in the past). And now just like a businessman you are charging price of your love, you know I don't have anything to give to me hence I have to suffer in agony, the compensation of your love. If you would have been really angry with me, then it would have gone the moment I realized my mistakes or within a few days, but now what you are doing is not anger, it is just a way to punish just for the reason that I cannot survive for long without you.' She further writes :

"I wanted to see how much you hate me now. I have judged the hatred through your words. And now I have come to know the reason of your hatred too. I know you would never listen to me but I have a lot to say to you. Now that you say I am away from anybody else on this earth I would like you to burn each and everything which lies between us. Each and every articles which has been gifted to you by me, each and every word I have written to you. If you do this, you shall see a heart burning in front of you and another heart enjoying inside you. Killing somebody is not big a crime as much is hurting somebody to the extent as much as you have hurted me.'

32. In another letter written in Hindi (placed at page 1305 in Trial Court Record) she mentioned about her mistake, the punishment for which she would continuing to undergo throughout her life and that she was shocked on thread of love being broken. It is a long letter where she says that whenever a relationship had ended and there was no love in her life (though she had earnest desire to live with someone and to have all happiness which everybody has got) she was obliged for all the love and life given by him for two years.

She also stated that when she has been living alone and he is the one who used to show her the path and had left her in the crowd. She had mentioned that he had given lot of love but again she is as useless as before and expected a reply and wrote 'Love Minny'.

33. In another letter (placed from pages 1307 to 1313 of the Trial Court Record), she writes that she had become mad and it make no difference to anyone. She could not keep anybody happy in the four walls of that house and that she had overheard what they (appellant and his wife) had while strolling and had there been someone else she would have preferred to roam on the road then to in the house. She further writes :

'Apko Bhool Kar Jine Ka Sawal To Impossible Jaisa Hai'

and that she knew that he hated her for the reasons known to her to some extent, and further though now he thought of her to be a mean girl but at some point of time, he loved her and cared for her, he should atleast meet her and give preference to her love over an half-an-hour's work. She also wanted that he should not avoid her or else he would invite trouble. The letter ends thus :

'Life has always given me loneliness and you had been giving happiness now if I lose you there shall be loneliness only and you know nobody can survive for long in loneliness alone. Think of me once and meet me once if you had loved me ever. Ever loving Minny.'

34. A bare reading of the letters referred to above, written by PW-3 to Appellant Raman Mahajan are sufficient to infer that they do not contain 'sisterly affection' but were written by a girl in frustration to someone she loved.

35. The Trial Court, in our opinion committed an error while appreciating the contents of the letter written by PW-3 Payal @ Minny about the kind of longing she had for Raman. A careful reading of all the letters written by her and the circumstances in which the letters Ex. PW-1/D1 to D6 were found lead to the only conclusion that she was in love with him that she found it impossible to live without him. These feelings were observed or noticed by Vandana who ended her life.

36. So far as criminal appeal No.175/99 filed by the State challenging the acquittal of both Raman and Mohini under Sec.304-B IPC and also under Sec.498-A IPC and the case law relied upon by the prosecution in this regard are concerned, we are of the view that there is no strait jacket formula and facts and circumstances of each case are to be considered. No doubt, the High Court has the power to reconsider the entire evidence and reappraise the record to reach to its own conclusion. If the findings recorded by the

trial court are perverse or the view taken by it is unreasonable, these findings can be upset. In this case after going through the various letters written by PW-3 as well as the diary of Vandana, there is little doubt about the circumstances surrounding the suicide of Vandana. We are of the opinion that her death was neither the result of the Appellant‟s cruel behaviour, nor did Raman treat her with cruelty as to be guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Resultantly, the State‟s appeal (No. 175/99) fails and is dismissed.

37. Criminal Appeal No.145/98 filed by Raman challenging his conviction under Sec.498-A IPC is allowed and he is acquitted of the charge. The bail bond and surety bond stands discharged.

The Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

PRATIBHA RANI, J

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NOVEMBER 14, 2011 ST