Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Date Of Decision: 02.07.202 vs Maya Devi on 2 July, 2021

Serial No. 505
Final Hearing
Cause List.
                 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                            AT JAMMU
                  (THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE FROM SRINAGAR)
                                    ....

CRAA no. 26/2013 Date of decision: 02.07.2021 State Th. P/S, Ramnagar.

                                                      ....... Petitioner(s)
                                  Through: Mr. Vishal Bhart, Dy. AG
                           Versus
Maya Devi                                             ........ Respondent(s)

                                  Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

Judgement (Oral)

1. Heard Mr. Vishal Bharti, learned Dy. AG appearing for the appellant

and also gone through evidence recorded in this case. There are three

sets of evidence on record. One set is of the official witnesses who have

deposed about the Investigation/expert opinion etc. Another set of

witnesses are those who have turned hostile. And third set of witnesses

are those who are neighbours and relations of the deceased, who

deposed that the deceased usually complained about the ill treatment by

the accused.

2. Prosecution is required to have produced evidences which would create

nexus between the accused and the commission of offences. It is only

after such evidence produced that other two sets of witnesses lend

support to the credentials of the statement of the witnesses to support

prosecution version. A number of witnesses have stated that the

deceased usually complained about the ill treatment, she was subjected

to by the accused, but opinion of these witnesses are not sure as to how

CRAA no. 26/2013

deceased died. Narration of these witnesses have given hearsay version

which as per them, they had heard from the deceased. Relatives of the

deceased have their own story to tell.

3. PW Thakur Dass deposed that he cannot say as to how deceased died.

He says that deceased was not being ill treated by the accused. PW

Bano also says that she does not know how deceased died but she says

that she heard from the deceased that she had been treated by the

accused for bad luck. Similar statement has also been given by PW

Beeru Devi.

4. PW Madan Lal deposed that she was told by the deceased that she was

blamed by the accused for misfortune which their family was suffering

and he thereafter heard that she had died, but how she died, he does not

know. PW Asha Devi is a mother of the deceased who has deposed that

deceased complained about the ill treatment by her husband and was

calling her bad omen for his entire family. The accused was physically

assaulting her and ultimately, she died. The dead body was having

marks of violence. The relatives of the deceased have narrated a

different story. PW Asha Devi (Mother of the deceased) has stated

about the presence of the marks of violence on the body of deceased.

5. PW Rattan Singh had also made a similar statement. He is the uncle of

the deceased. He, however, says that he cannot say as to how she died.

PW Shakuntla have also stated about the ill treatment of the deceased

by the accused. PW Sandalan Devi have also stated about the ill

treatment of the deceased by the accused and PW Sandalan says that

accused was blaming her for misfortune, which was being faced by

their family. PW Hukam Chand has also stated about the ill treatment

CRAA no. 26/2013

of the deceased by the accused. He, further says that there was a mark

of violence on neck of the deceased, but he also says that he does not

know about the cause of the death of the deceased.

6. From the statement of the witnesses referred above, it is clear that all of

them have stated that deceased was complaining about the ill treatment

by the accused but they do not know as to how she died. Some of the

witnesses undertook to ill treatment to the deceased, saying that there

are marks of violence on the body of the deceased. The question which

requires consideration is as to whether the allegations, even if taken to

be proved, would be sufficient enough to hold accused guilty. In my

opinion, such allegations, even if, stated to have been established, are

not sufficient enough to hold accused guilty of the offences for which

he has been charged. The allegations, that accused was treating her as

bad omen for the family, would not be sufficient ground to hold that

such treatment to the deceased would amount to abetment to suicide or

cruelty.

7. Statement of the witnesses is based upon what was heard, i.e., statement

hearsay version of the witnesses and even if, it is believed that such

statements are true, these statements would not attract penal action

under the provisions of Section 306/498-A RPC. The allegations that

accused was treating the deceased as bad omen for the family is not

such an issue to lead the house wife to commit suicide.

8. The respondent-accused is the mother-in-law of the deceased for whom

these void allegations have been levelled and statement given. There is

no evidence to the effect that the husband of the deceased was in any

way involved in dispute with the deceased.

CRAA no. 26/2013

9. The deceased was residing in the matrimonial house with her mother-

in-law, whereas, her husband is working at Delhi. It appears that the

relationship of the deceased was not cordial, but that does not mean that

such rival dispute would derive the daughter-in-law (deceased) to

commit suicide. In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal 1994 (1)

SCC 73, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as:

"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."

10.In this case, which require consideration is that the relatives of the

deceased have deposed that there are marks of violence on the body of

the deceased which assertion appears to be false. There is no mention

of any injury having been found on the body of the deceased except a

prick on her foot. In Farad Surat Hall Ext.P-23-III in postmortem report

exhibit Ext-PR-26, there is no mention of any injury having been found

on the person of deceased.

11.The documentary evidence in the shape of Ext-23-III and postmortem

report exhibit Ext-PR-26 falsifies the statement of these witnesses who

are the relatives of the deceased regarding the presence of marks of

violence on the body of the deceased.

12.Story put forth by witnesses who are the close relatives of the deceased