Phool Wati & Anr. (In J.C.) vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 792 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Judgment reserved on: 05.02.2014.
                                      Judgment delivered on:11.02.2014.
+      CRL.A. 81/2006
       PHOOL WATI & ANR. (IN J.C.)                ..... Appellant
                      Through   Mr. Satish Tamta, Advocate.

                             versus

       STATE                                               ..... Respondent
                             Through       Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP along
                                           with SI Kapil Kumar.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order

of sentence dated 23.1.2006 and 28.1.2006, wherein Phool Wati

(since deceased) and Smt. Usha (appellant) have been convicted

for the offence under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC; appellant

had been sentenced for the offence under Section 304-B IPC to

undergo RI for a period of 7 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 1 year; for

the offence under Section 498A IPC to undergo RI for 3 years

with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment, to further

undergo RI for 6 months.

2. This judgment is the subject matter of appeal before this Court.

3. On 08.7.1999, Smt. Meenu, wife of Rajneesh had sustained

injuries; she had succumbed to her death on the same day. The

death had occurred in the matrimonial home of the victim, i.e. on

the first floor of F-20, Mansarover Park, Delhi.

4. Version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of

Permeshwari Devi, PW-1 (mother of the victim). In her statement

(Ex.PW-1/A) she deposed that Meenu (Victim) was treated with

cruelty by Phool Wati (mother-in-law) Rajneesh (husband),

Rakesh (brother-in-law), Shiv Kumar (brother-in-law) and Nita

(sister-in-law). They used to demand dowry. Her brother-in-law

(Naresh), who lived abroad quarreled with the victim for dowry

whenever he used to come to her matrimonial home.

5. Two days prior to the incident, i.e. 06.7.1999, the victim had

come to her parental home and told that her in-laws was

demanding a sum of Rs.2 lac and a house in Delhi; her parents

were unable to meet this demand.

6. On the morning of 08.7.1999 at about 3 AM, a telephone call was

received by her informing that Meenu had received burn injuries.

On reaching her matrimonial home, she found Meenu dead.

7. Investigation was marked to ASI Aishbir Singh (PW-17). He has

deposed that at about 4.15 AM, he was on patrolling duty when

D.D.No.54B (Ex.16/A) was assigned to him; and he along with

Constable Shiv Kumar (PW-7) reached the matrimonial home of

the victim. On the ground floor, all the afore-noted accused

persons except Anita were present. On query, it was learnt that

the incident had taken place on the first floor. The dead body of

the victim was lying at a place just in front of the stair case; there

were the burn marks on the entire dead body of the victim; her

fingers were closed tightly; her tongue was protruding in between

the teeth; few scalp hairs were burnt; pieces of flesh as also the

burnt cloths were also in the room. Outside the room, one plastic

cane, bottom of which was burnt, one tin and a match box were

also lying. The SHO was summoned as was also the SDM,

Prakash Chander (PW-10) who recorded the statement of the

mother of the victim Parmeshwari Devi (PW-1) and her brother

Raj Kumar (PW-2) as also the statement of other brothers,

Deepak Kumar and Ashok Kumar. Deepak Kumar and Ashok

Kumar were not examined by the prosecution.

8. The dead body was sent to the mortuary of GTB Hospital for post-

mortem. Dr. Gautam Bishwas (PW-18) had conducted the post-

mortem on the body of the victim; the post-mortem report was

proved as Ex.18/G and rigormortis was noted all over the body. The

following external injuries were noted:-

"Superficial to deep antemortem fresh burn wound covering 95% of the body surface area sparing both soles and palms and part of scalp. Most of the burn wounds are superficial with blackening present. Erythema seen at places. Singeing of scalp hair, pubic hair and axillary hair present. Skin parchment like at places. Smell of kerosene present in scalp hair. Peeling off of skin present at places."

9. On internal examination, it was noted that:-

"Head and Neck: Scalp and skull NAD. Brain weight 1250 gram congested. Neck-structure- intact. Treachea-walls congested, soot particles present admixed with mucus. Chest:

Lungs: Right-weight 400 grams Left-weight 350 grams, congested, soot particles present at bronchioles admixed with mucus.

Heart: Weight 350 grams NAD.

Abdomen and others:

Stomach: About 75 ml. of digested food material present. Walls congested and haemorrhagic.

Liver: Weight 2200 grams congested and enlarge.

Spleen: Weight 250 gram congested.

Kidneys: Right weight 200 grams.

Left weight 200 grams, both congested. Uterus: Empty and NAD.

Urinerary Bladder: Empty.

Viscera preserved for chemical analysis under the seal of AKT. Preservative used-saturated solution of common salt. Pieces of charred clothes with hair band and scalp hair preserved."

10.The opinion on the cause of death was as under:-

"Opinion : Time since death about half day. Cause of death will be given after receiving the chemical analysis of viscera."

11.In the course of the investigation, the statements of the neighbors

Dev Das (PW-4), Rishi Pal (PW-5), Jagbir Singh (PW-7) and

Shyam Singh (PW-12) were recorded. The neighbors did not

support the version of the prosecution.

12. Bhushan Azad (PW-19) was the second Investigating Officer.

He had filed the supplementary chargesheet.

13. In the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section

313 of the Cr.P.C, they had pleaded innocence; submissions being

that the allegations leveled against them by Meenu's mother and

brothers are false; no dowry demand was made; Meenu was never

harassed and no cruelty inflicted upon her; she was undergoing

gynecological problem that she was not able to bear a child and

also that her husband was suffering from mental ailment; it was

her own depression which had led to this incident.

14.In defence, 12 witnesses were examined. Kishan Lal (DW-1) was

a neighbor. He had deposed that the marriage of the parties was

simple and on the date of the incident, he had gone to extinguish

the fire. Rama Mishra (DW-3) was a family friend and he had

deposed that no dowry was demanded at the time of marriage.

The Mediator who got the marriage performed between Meenu

and Rajneesh was Ashok Kumar (DW-2); he had deposed that

neither the deceased nor her family members ever complained

him about Meenu being harassed for dowry. Two doctors, Dr.

Anita Garg (DW-5) and Dr. Usha Mohan (DW06) had treated

Meenu as a patient. They had deposed that Meenu was suffering

from a gynecological problem and was unable to bear a child; two

years had passed since her marriage. Dr. K. Adarsh (DW-7) had

also treated Meenu. Two other doctors, namely, Dr. R.A. Singh

(DW-8) and Dr. Sharad Mathur (DW-9) have been summoned

from the IBHAS and they had deposed that the husband of Meenu

was taking medicine for his mental ailment. His condition was not

disputed. Rajinder Singh (DW-10) was a witness to the defence

that the husband of Meenu, namely, Rajneesh was admitted in the

Air Force Hospital, Hindon, Ghaziabad from 06.7.1999 to

10.7.1999, that is the period when the incident had occurred. The

prosecution does not dispute this fact also.

15.On the afore-noted evidence pleaded by the prosecution both oral

and documentary, the accused Phool Wati and accused Usha have

been convicted for the offence as aforenoted and sentenced

accordingly. Phool Wati, the mother-in-law had since expired;

appeal qua her has abated; the appellant filed the appeal before

this Court against Usha alone.

16.Usha was the elder sister-in-law of the victim Meenu. Her

husband was in Army and used to be posted outstation. It is also

an admitted position that Usha was living on the ground floor of

the matrimonial home of the victim, that is House No.F-20,

Mansarovar Park, Delhi, with mother-in-law, Phool Wati; the first

floor was in occupation of Meenu and husband Rajneesh and after

marriage of two years, they had no child. It is also admitted that

on efforts by the married couple to bear a child, Meenu was

unable to do so; and versions of DWs- 5, 6 and 7 that Meenu was

suffering from a gynecological problem is not challenged. The

fact that the husband of Meenu, namely, Rajneesh was suffering

from a mental instability has also not been disputed by the

prosecution.

17.On behalf of the appellant, arguments have been addressed in

detail. It is pointed out that the appellant was living on the

ground floor with her mother-in-law; nothing has come out either

in the statement of PW-1 or PW-2 to assign any role to the

appellant; if at all any role has been assigned, it is to Phool Wati,

mother-in-law of the victim; there are no specific allegations

against the appellant; and bald and general allegations by this

Court are not sufficient to nail the accused for an offence of this

nature.

18.Attention has been drawn to the version of PW-1 and PW-2; no

other earlier status given before the SDM; it is pointed out that

none of the four neighbors i.e. PWs-4, 5, 7 and 12 have supported

the version of the prosecution; they have admitted the true picture

that they had seen Meenu in flames; it was to the fact that they

had gone to the house of Meenu when they had noticed flames

coming out from the first floor of the residence of Meenu; which

was opposite their houses and on knocking the door, which was

opened by Phool Wati and Usha; all went up stairs where they

found Meenu lying dead with burn injuries all over her body.

19. Submissions being that the members of the ground floor of the

house were unaware of what was happening on the first floor

where Meenu was residing with her husband; it was out of a sense

of frustration and extreme depression that she had taken her own

life by burning herself to death; not only for the reason that she

could not conceive a child but also for the reason that her husband

was mentally instable and she could not see a future ahead for

herself; there was no dowry demand made by any member of the

family and especially by the appellant from the family of the

victim; this is borne out from the evidence of the prosecution; the

evidence in defence also substantiated that the marriage of Meenu

and Rajneesh was simple and no dowry was either demanded or

given. To support his submission, learned counsel for the

appellant has relied upon 2013(4) SCALE Indrajit Sureshprasad

Bind & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat. It is pointed out that where

there are gaps in the evidence of the prosecution and the

testimony of the witnesses is faulty, the accused cannot be nailed.

Reliance is also being placed on 2013(13) SCALE Bhola Ram vs.

State of Punjab to substantiate the same submission; submission

being that she was living on the ground floor and not in the same

residence as that of the victim.

20.Arguments have been refuted by learned counsel for the State; it

is stated that the impugned judgment does not call for any

interference; for the reason that the judgment has relied upon the

reliable version of PW-1 and PW-2. There was no reason

whatsoever for the victim to have killed herself but for the fact

that there was extreme cruelty by the demands of dowry made

upon her by the appellant and her mother-in-law. The judgment

calls for no interference.

21.Arguments have been heard and records have been perused. I

have noted supra that the appellant has been convicted under

Section 304B of the IPC; but for the accused to be held guilty

under the afore-noted provisions of law, the prosecution is

required to prove that the deceased has been subjected to cruelty

and harassment by the accused. The prosecution has to establish

by evidence that the victim had been subjected to cruelty in

connection with demands of dowry. Section 304B of the IPC in

fact, postulates the following two ingredients to be established by

the prosecution:

(i) The death of a woman has been caused under unnatural

circumstances within seven years of marriage;

(ii) Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or

harassment by her husband or any relative of husband or in

connection with any demand for dowry.

22.Thus the criminal liability under Section 304B of the IPC is

attracted not just by a demand of dowry but by the act of cruelty

or harassment by husband or any relative of her husband in

connection with such a demand; this act of cruelty or harassment

has to be caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her

death in connection with the demand of dowry. Unless and until

all these ingredients are established by the prosecution, the

accused cannot be held liable for the offence of dowry death

under Section 304B of the IPC.

23. Similarly, under Section 498A of the IPC, the act of cruelty to a

woman by her husband or any relative of the husband would be

punishable and would be come within the meaning of Clause A

and B in the Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC. The

Explanation of Section 498A of the IPC defines cruelty and reads

herein as under:

"Explanation - For the purpose 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 or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."

24.PW-1 is the mother of the victim. In her first complaint, that is

before her statement before the SDM (Ex.PW1/A), she had stated

that her daughter Meenu was married to Rajneesh; all her in-laws

used to trouble her for dowry. She had named her husband,

Rajneesh, brothers-in-law, Rakesh, Shiv Kumar and Naresh,

sisters-in-law, Usha and Anita and her mother-in-law, Phool

Wati; submission being to the fact that she should bring a house

in Delhi; two days prior to the incident, i.e. 06.7.1999, Meenu had

come to that house and had stated that a demand of Rs.2 lac was

being made by her in-laws or else a house should be given to

them. Further submission being that Meenu's brother-in-law,

Naresh, who was living out of station also used to quarrel with her

and harass her; they used to beat her as well. On 08.7.1999, in the

morning at about 3 AM, a telephone call was received, wherein

she was informed that her daughter had sustained severe injuries.

On reaching her matrimonial home, she had found her lying dead.

This statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded on the next day at

12.30 PM. The SDM, Chander Prakash (PW-10) had recorded

the statement of the family members of the victim i.e. PW-1 and

PW-2.

25. On oath in Court, PW-1 deposed that whenever Meenu used to

come her parental house; she used to complain that Phool Wati,

her mother-in-law, Rakesh and Shiv Kumar (brothers-in-law) and

Rajneesh, her husband used to ill-treat her. On 06.7.1999, she

told that an amount of Rs.2 lac had been demanded by her

mother-in-law, Phool Wati; she stated that mother-in-law had also

demanded a house; PW-1 was not able to meet these demands. In

cross-examination, she admitted that dowry was given at the time

of marriage, which included fridge. She denied the suggestion

that the fridge was purchased by her in-laws. She admitted that

her daughter had separated since the last about 6 months and was

then living at the first floor of the premises. She further admitted

that Naresh (brother-in-law) lives in London and Rakesh, husband

of Usha is employed in the Army. She further deposed that her

daughter had told Rajneesh (husband) is mentally unsound.

26. PW-2 has deposed on the same lines as his mother (PW-1). He

has stated that whenever his sister used to come to her parental

home, she told them about being ill-treated by her husband,

Rajneesh and brother-in-law, Shiv Kumar for dowry; the mother-

in-law also used to harass her; on 06.7.1999, she informed about

the dowry demands being made by her in-laws; PW-2 was unable

to meet these demands. In cross-examination, he admitted that

the statement has been recorded by the SDM.

27. These two witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 are the most relevant

witnesses; as no other family members have been examined; they

deposed that the victim was being harassed for demand of dowry.

In the entire version of PW-1, on oath in Court, there is no

whisper of the appellant, Usha (jethani) having harassed her for

any dowry. Version of PW-1 is that, on 06.7.1999, Meenu had

come to her parental house and told them that a demand of dowry

of Rs.2 lac had been made by her mother-in-law; further version

being that mother-in-law had also demanded a house. The name

of Usha did not find a mention.

28. The name of the appellant has only appeared in the version of

PW-2 which was to the effect that the victim had disclosed that

her in-laws which included Rakesh, Shiv Kumar and Usha used to

ill-treat her for dowry demands. No detail of any such ill-

treatment has been given. This general allegation against Usha

has been clubbed along with Rakesh and Shiv Kumar (brother-in-

laws) of whom Shiv Kumar was acquitted and Rakesh was not

even charged. Role of Usha in this version of PW-2 is equivalent

to the role of the other two.

29. Thus this bald and general allegation by PW-2 by itself that

whenever his sister used to come to her parental house, she used

to tell them that she was being harassed by her in-laws for dowry

demands or that on 06.7.1999, when his sister had come to her

parents' house, she had stated that a demand for Rs.2 lacs and a

house was made without detailing as to who had made this

demand and when read along with the version of PW-1, it is clear

that this demand of Rs.2 lacs and house was made by her mother-

in-law Phool Wati only. There was no role of Usha.

30. It is these two versions of PW-1 & PW-2 which have been relied

upon by the Trial Judge to hold that the harassment to the victim

was made by Usha and Phool Wati soon before her death and this

harassment and cruelty was made in connection with the dowry

demands.

31. This Court is not in agreement with this fact finding returned by

the Trial Judge. The Trial Judge has gone on surmises and

conjunctures and has dealt with imaginative situations, which do

not find mention in the versions of the witnesses. It is the

evidence on record which has to lead to the judgment. The

evidence on record which is the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2

has been discussed supra; PW-1's version did not find any

mention about the appellant having made any dowry demand

upon her sister-in-law (Meenu); PW-2 made a general statement

that the accused persons including Usha had made dowry

demand; on this version which being general and having roped in

two other relations Rakesh and Shiv Kumar of whom as already

noted supra Shiv Kumar was discharged and Rakesh was not even

charge-sheeted, it would be wholly illegal to hold that the

prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant Usha had

harassed and meted out cruel treatment to Meenu in connection

with dowry demands.

32. There is no doubt that the victim Meenu has died an unnatural

death. She has died due to burning. The death has also taken

place within 7 years of her marriage. However, there is absence

of any definite allegation by PW-1 and PW-2 or any other family

member that any dowry demand was made from Usha or that

Usha had treated Meenu in a humiliating manner as to become a

conspirator along with her mother-in-law to cause her dowry

death.

33. The foundation of the case not having been laid down by the

prosecution and the essential ingredients of Section 304B of the

IPC not having been established, the presumption of Section

113B of the Evidence Act could not be availed of by the

prosecution. All unnatural deaths will not necessarily take into

net all family members of the husband.

34. The Supreme Court in 2013(4) SCALE Bharat Bhushan & Anr.

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh while reiterating the law on Sections

304-B and 498-A had observed as under:

"Section 304B Indian Penal Code provides that where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called 'dowry death' and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Hence the criminal liability under Section 304B Indian Penal Code is attracted not just by the demand of dowry but by the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or any relative of her husband in connection with such demand; thus, unless such an act of cruelty or harassment is proved to have been caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry, the accused cannot be held to be liable for the offence of

dowry death under Section 304B Indian Penal Code. Similarly, Section 498A Indian Penal Code provides that the act of cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relative would be punishable and would be attracted only if the husband or his relative commits an act of cruelty within the meaning of Clauses (a) and (b) in the Explanation to Section 498A Indian Penal Code."

35. In Vipin Jaiswal vs. State of A.P. 2013(3) SCALE, the following

observations of the Apex Court in the facts of that case are

relevant:-

"In our considered opinion, the evidence of DW1 (the Appellant) and Ext. D19 cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story that the deceased was subjected to harassment or cruelty in connection with demand of dowry. In our view, onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 498A, Indian Penal Code and the essential ingredient of offence under Section 498A is that the accused, as the husband of the deceased, has subjected her to cruelty as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code. Similarly, for the Court to draw the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act that the Appellant had caused dowry death as defined in Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove besides the demand of dowry, harassment or cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased soon before her death. Since the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt this ingredient of harassment or cruelty, neither of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, Indian Penal Code has been made out by the prosecution"

36. The testimony of the neighbors is also relevant. That testimony

will be better appreciated if the site plan (Ex.17/A) is perused.

Ex.17/A shows the matrimonial home of the victim; she was

living on the first floor; her charred dead body was lying outside

in the terrace area on her first floor; along with dead body, her

burnt cloths, a match box, half broken plastic cane have also been

depicted. The dead body was lying as already noted supra; this

dead body was lying in the terrace area and away from the room

and kitchen. The neighbors who have been examined, namely,

PWs 4, 5, 7 and 12 are living as per the site plan in Houses No. F-

21 (F-21 again on F-7).

37. PW-4 has deposed that on the fateful day, he saw that the house

of the accused caught fire and he came down stairs to his house

and raised an alarm. On knocking the door, Phoolwati and Usha

opened the door and they went up stairs. They found that

Rajneesh was sleeping and his wife Meenu was in flames. He did

not support the prosecution version to the fact that Phoolwati had

not tried to save Meenu. Relevant would it be to say that even a

public prosecutor has not given any suggestion to this witness

about the present role of the appellant.

38. PW-6 was another neighbor. He was residing in front of the

accused persons, House No.F-7, Mansarovar Park. While

sleeping in his roof, he heard the cry of the victim; on going to the

house of the accused and on knocking the door; the door was

opened by Phoolwati and Usha; they all went to the first floor

where the victim was found lying in flames. All of them tried to

save her. This witness was also declared hostile. He denied the

suggestion that Phoolwati did not try to save Meenu. Relevant

would it be to state that no suggestion has been given to this

witness either about the role of Usha.

39. PW-7, Jagir Singh was yet another neighbor. He also noticed

flames in the house of the accused; on knocking the door; the

door was opened by Phoolwati and Usha; they all went to the first

floor where the victim was found lying in flames. This witness

was also declared hostile. He denied the suggestion that

Phoolwati did not try to save Meenu. Relevant would it be to

state that no suggestion has been given to this witness either about

the role of Usha. No suggestion has been given to this effect that

Usha has also any role in not trying to save the victim from

flames.

40. PW-12, Shyam Singh was the 4th neighbor. He was sleeping on

the roof of his house, in front of the house of the accused; the first

floor of the house of the accused was burning; he knocked the

door of the accused; Phoolwati and Usha opened the door; they

went up stairs and found that Meenu was lying in flames. This

witness was also cross-examined by the learned public prosecutor.

No suggestion has also been given about the role of Usha that she

had not tried to save Meenu from burning.

41. The statements of these neighbors show that even as per the

version of the prosecution; when these neighbors had noticed

flames from the first floor of the house of the accused, they all

had gone there and knocked the door; the ground floor door was

opened by Phoolwati and Usha; all of them had clearly stated that

both Usha and Phoolwati were down stairs at that time; they both

accompanied the neighbors to the first floor where the victim was

lying in a burnt condition. This version of the prosecution itself

establishes that the appellant and Phoolwati were in fact in their

own residence and had gone up with their neighbors when they

had noticed the flames on the first floor.

42. The defence witnesses, i.e. DW-5,6 and 7 and their reports have

all established that Meenu had gynecological problem; she could

not conceive a child after two years of her marriage, although

efforts were there to conceive.

43. DW-6, Dr. Usha Mohan has stated that the patient may remain

under depression if she is unable to conceive after two years of

her marriage. Ex.DW-5/A-C shows the fact that the victim was

undergoing treatment in order to bear a child. OPD Card Ex.7/A

also shows that treatment was going on.

44. The fact that the husband of the victim was not well has also been

established in the version of DWs9 and 10, who were both

doctors from IBHAS and the documents Ex.DW9/A-D evidenced

that the medicines prescribed to Rajneesh (husband of Meenu)

were tranquilizers and caused the patient to sleep; if taken for a

long duration, this also may cause sexual dysfunction. DW-10,

Rajinder Singh had produced discharge slip of Rajneesh, husband

of the victim, showing that he was being treated from the Air

Force Hospital and he in fact, remained in hospital for the reason

that he was undergoing depression and was suffering from mental

instability. It was the additional cause of a depression for the

victim.

45. This defence is by and large substantiated not only from the line

of cross-examination adopted by the defence counsel but also

from the stand of the accused in their statements recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter again by producing

witnesses in defence.

46. Versions of DW-1 and DW-2 had also established that the

marriage of the parties was simple and not only the Mediator but

even the neighbors had stated that the victim had never been

harassed by the accused for any dowry. The fact was that the

victim and her husband were living separately since the last 6

months; which fact has been admitted by PW-1 herself.

47. Further at the time when the death of the victim had taken place

on her first floor residence; neither Usha and Phoolwati were

present. The incident had occurred at 3 AM in the morning. It is

clearly a case where the victim had committed suicide not

because of any harassment or cruelty meted out by the appellant

but because of her mental state.

48. The Supreme Court in 1994 (1) SCC 73 State of West Bengal v.

Orilal Jaiswal in the context of a victim of suicide had noted that

where 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 could not

be satisfied for holding anyone else responsible for such an act.

49. The impugned judgment convicting the appellant in this

background clearly suffers from an illegality. It is accordingly set

aside.

50. Appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted. Her bail bond is

cancelled; surety is discharged. File be consigned to record room.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

FEBRUARY 11, 2014 KA