KULDEEP KAURversusSTATE OF UTIARAKHAND

                       [2014] 10 S.C.R. 1100


A                        KULDEEP KAUR
                                  v.
                    STATE OF UTIARAKHAND
                (Criminal Appeal No. 2267 of 2014)
                        OCTOBER 17, 2014
B
       [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860:

c        s.306 - Abetment of suicide - Bride committing suicide
    in her matrimonial home within 4 months of marriage - No
    evidence regarding demand of dowry or harassment in that
    regard - Acquittal of appellant and all other accused persons
    of charges u/ss 498-A and 304 B - Conviction of appellant
0   u/s 306 - Evidence adduced as against appellant does not
    establish the case u/s 306 and, as such, her conviction is set
    aside.

        Allowing the appeal, the Court
E     HELD: 1.1. A perusal of trial court judgment
  pertaining to deceased's husband would show that PW1,
  father of .the deceased, in his cross-examination stated
  that no dowry was demanded by the accused persons
  from the day of alliance till solemnization of marriage. The
F witness himself stated that only God knows why her
  daughter committed suicide without any reason. This
  witness has stated that it is true to say that neither the
  accused persons abetted his daughter to commit suicide
  nor had they harassed her. [para 16] [1106-H; 1107-A-C]
G       1.2. The evidence adduced as against the appellant
    does not establish the case uls 306 of the Code. Having
    regard to the fact of the case and the evidence of the
    prosecution witnesses, the trial court acquitted all the

H                               1100
   KULDEEP KAUR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                    1101


accused persons except the appellant and the said                   A
judgment was affirmed by the High Court. There is no
strong reason to agree with the judgment of conviction
passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court
as against the appellant. The judgment of conviction of
the appellant u/s 306 IPC is set aside. [para 17-18) [1107-         B
D-F]

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2267 of 2014.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2013 in CRLA            C
No. 213/2006, of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

    Huzefa Ahmadi, Rajeev Sinha, Ranbir Singh Kundu, Rohan
Sharma, Vishwa Pal Singh for the Appellant.

      Pankaj K. Singh, Rahul Verma (For Abhishek Chaudhary)         D
for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted.                               E
     2. This appeal by special leave arises out of judgment and
order dated 3.1.2013 of the High Court of Uttarakhand in
Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2006, whereby Division Bench of
the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant
and affirmed the decision of the trial court convicting her under   F
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo three years
rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-. The High Court
also dismissed the appeal preferred by the State against the
judgment of acquittal passed by trial court.
                                                                    G
     3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 6.6.2001
the complainant of the case viz. Captain Jagtar Singh (PW1)
lodged a report Ex.A-1 at P.S. Sitarganj, wherein it has been
stated that marriage- of his -daughter Jagpreet Kaur was
solemnized with Upkar Singh son of Harpal Singh on 1.3.2001.        H
    1102     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A The complainant gave the articles in the marriage according
  to his capacity, but in-laws of his daughter used to demand car
  etc. and used to taunt and harass his daughter. It was further
  complained that Jagpreet Kaur told the informant that her in-
  laws harassed her on account of non-fulfillment of demand of
B dowry and in the intervening night of 5th/6th of June, 2001, she
  was compelled to commit suicide. On the basis of this
  complaint, case was registered against the accused persons
  under Section 304-B, IPC and the police took into custody a
  small bottle, cover of which was slightly torned, on which
c "Cypermethrin High Emulsifable Concentrate (Vet) Elitomin 100
  E.C." was written. Diary Ex.A-2 written by the deceased was
  also seized. Dead body was sent for post-mortem, where no
  apparent injury except ligature mark on the neck was found.
  According to the concerned Doctor, cause of death of the
  deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem
0
  hanging.

        4. Upon investigation, charge-sheet for the offence
    punishable under Section 304-B, IPC was submitted in the
    Court of Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of
E   Sessions for trial. The trial court charged accused persons viz.
    mother-in-law Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and brothers-in-law Gurlal
    Singh & Rakesh Grover under Section 498A/304-B, IPC and
    Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, to which the accused
    persons pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
F
        5. It is worth to mention here that as accused Harpal (father-
  in-law) had died, case was abated against him, and since
  deceased's husband Upkar Singh and sisters-in-law Rupender
  Kaur and Satender Kaur were absent at the time of filing of
G chargesheet, their records were taken apart and separate
  c.hargesheet was filed against them at later stage. In that case,
  trial court has acquitted these accused persons by giving them
  benefit of doubt with respect to allegations alleged against
  them.

H       6. To prove its case against Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and Gurlal
   KULDEEP KAUR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                      1103
              [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]
Singh & Rakesh Grover, prosecution examined eight                     A
witnesses, namely, PW1 Captain Jagtar Singh (deceased's
father), PW2 Smt. Gurmeet Kaur (deceased's cousin sister),
PW3 Pyara Singh (deceased's relative), PW4 Dr. R.A. Kediya
(who conducted post-mortem), PW5 Harak Singh Rawat
(Tehsildar), PW6 Balwant Singh, PW7 S.I. Sohan Pal Singh and          B
PW8 Dalip Singh (Investigation Officer). In defence, three
witnesses were examined. Incriminating evidence was put to
the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, in which they submitted that they were falsely
implicated in the case.                                               c
     7. On appreciation of evidence and material placed on
record, the trial court held that the deceased did not commit
suicide due to cruelty caused to her in connection with demand
of dowry and acquitted the appellant and other co-accused of
the offence punishable under Sections 498A/304B, IPC and              D
Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the
appellant was held guilty under Section 306, IPC and was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for.three years and fine of
Rs.5000/-.
                                                                      E
     8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, respondent-
State preferred appeal before the High Court against the
judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. Accused-
appellant also preferred appeal challenging her conviction under
Section 306, IPC. After hearing learned counsel appearing for         F
the parties and appreciating the evidence and papers placed
before it, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the
appeals affirming judgment of the trial court.

     9. Hence this appeal by the mother-in-law of the deceased.
                                                                      G
      10. Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellant at the very outset submitted that the trial court
has acquitted all the accused persons except the appellant, who
has already undergone about six months of custody as under
trial and she is an old lady aged about 86 years. It is further       H
    1104    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   submitted that the appellant has undergone heart surgery and
    is also suffering from various old age ailments and practically
    confined to bed.

       11. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that
  PW1 father of the deceased made only general allegation of
8
  demand of dowry against all the family members and there are
  no specific allegations against the present appellant. The trial
  court while convicting the appellant has relied upon the contents
  of the diary of the deceased. However, trial court found
  contradiction in the statements of the witnesses PW1 , PW2 and
C PW3 in respect of demand of dowry by the accused persons
  and the deceased not writing anything about demand of dowry
  in her diary in respect of these accused persons including the
  appellant and therefore, no presumption was taken by the trial
  court in respect of dowry death under Section 1138, IPC.
D
       12. Learned senior counsel drew our attention to the
  following findings and observations of the trial court in its
  decision in separate trial pertaining to deceased's husband:

        "... It appears from the perusal of diary that deceased was
E
        not happy from the behavior meted out to her by the
        accused persons and the members of the family and she
        was in depression. Her sensitivity towards things also
        appears to be more. PW-1 has stated in his cross-
        examination as to mental condition and temperament of
F       the deceased that his daughter was an illiterate one and
        used to like cities much. Her temperament right from
        childhood was such that she used to get perturbed on any
        issue, whereas, there was nothing in scarce in her
        matrimonial house or in her paternal house. It was her
G       nature to get depressed; she was a patient of depression.
        She was treated for depression much earlier also, but her
        thinking and tendency remained unchanged. PW-6, who
        is the brother of the deceased, has also stated in his
        evidence that his sister Priti was in depression. PW-7, the
H       Investigation Officer has stated in his examination-in-chief
   KULDEEP KAUR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                       1105
              [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

    that one sealed bottle was recovered from the site, whose          A
    cover was torn. Its report was also prepared by him .... In
    cross-examination this witness has stated that Actomin
    1OOE/C was written on the bottle recovered from the site.
    He has not got any chemical examination done with
    respect to medicine the above bottle contained. He has             B
    not conducted any investigation in this regard that medicine
    kept in the bottle is used for which purpose. This medicine
    can also be used in the disease of depression. In this way,
    the statements mentioned in the diary available on the
    record alleged to be written by the deceased in context of         c
    evidences given by PW-1, PW-6 and PW-7 makes it clear
    that deceased was extremely sensitive and she could
    easily fall prey of depression even under normal
    circumstances. In this situation, special care of the
    deceased and sympathetic ambience was necessary for                0
    the deceased, but inability of her husband and other
    members of her family to understand her mental condition
    or their inability to help the deceased properly could be an
    important mistake on the part of the husband of the
    deceased and her other family members, but they cannot
    be held liable for any offence for it.
                                                                       E

                               xxxxx
     In the instant case, it is quite clear from the findings of the
     prosecution evidence that deceased was found hanging              F
     inside a room locked from inside, from where she was
     taken out after breaking glass and opening the door."

       13. Mr. Ahmadi contended that the finding of the trial court
holding the petitioner guilty under Section 306, IPC is on the
basis of surmises and conjectures. The trial court in its judgment     G
pertaining to the appellant has reproduced a line from the diary
of the deceased, which reads as "Still she wants me to work
till late." It is contended that the trial court erred in presuming
that when the deceased writes the above line in her diary she
is referring to the appellant. It is further contended that            H
    1106    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A conviction ,,f the appellant deserves to be set aside as both
  the courts:below failed to appreciate that the prosecution did
  not led any evidence on record to show that there was direct
  reasonable nexus between suicide and alleged cruelty. As both
  the courts below gave findings that there was no demand of
B dowry or any cruelty committed with the deceased in connection
  with demand of dowry and acquitted the appellant from charge
  under Sections 3048, 498A IPC and under sections 3 & 4 of
  the Dowry Prohibition Act, the courts below could not have come
  to a contradictory view that the deceased committed suicide
c due to cruelty committed by the appellant. Even in the diary,
  deceased has not written even a single word against the
  appellant. Perusal of the diary only shows, as also observed
  by the trial court in its decision in the trial of other accused
  persons including deceased's husband, that the deceased was
  depressed and has left no interest in life.
0
       14. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not
  disputed that although against the judgment of acquittal passed
  by the trial court acquitting the husband, father-in-law, brother-
  in-law and two sisters-in-law, the State preferred appeal but the
E same was dismissed by the High Court. However, no further
  appeal has been filed by the State before this Court. Learned
  counsel submitted that the conviction of the appellant under
  Section 306 IPC is fully justified.

F      15. We have perused the judgment passed by the trial
  court as also by the High Court. We have also gone through
  the judgments by which the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-
  law and two sisters-in-law have been acquitted by the trial court
  and affirmed by the High Court. So far this appellant is
G concerned, she has also been acquitted against the charges
  of dowry harassment but she has been convicted under Section
  306 IPC.

      16. A perusal of trial court judgment pertaining to
  deceased's husband would show that PW1, father of the
H deceased, in his cross examination stated that no dowry was
   KULDEEP KAUR v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND                       1107
              [M.Y. EQBAL, J.]

demanded by the accused persons from the day of alliance till          A
solemnization of marriage. Whatever stridhan was given was
as per the custom and as per his will in the form of gift to his
daughter. He further stated that his daughter had not told him
that in the absence of Upkar Singh she remained dejected in
her matrimonial house because of her mother-in-law, father-in-         B
law, sister-in-law and husband and elder brother-in-law on the
issue of dowry. Witness himself stated that only God knows why
her daughter committed suicide without any reason. This
witness has stated that it is tri.Je to say that neither the accused
persons abetted his daughter to commit suicide nor they                c
harassed her.

      17. We have given our anxious consideration in the matter
and analysed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In our
considered opinion, the evidence adduced as against the
appellant does not establish the case under Section 306 of the         D
Code. On the basis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses,
conviction of the appellant only cannot be sustained. Having
regard to the fact of the case and the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the trial court acquitted all the accused
persons except the present appellant and 'the said judgment            E
was affirmed by the High Court. We do not find any strong
reason to agree with the judgment of conviction passed by the
trial court and affirmed by the High Court as against the
appellant.
                                                                       F
     18. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and
the judgment of conviction of the appellant under Section 306
IPC is set aside.
Rajendra Prasad                                      Appeal allowed.