ipin Kumar Rai & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2000
Petitioner: ipin Kumar Rai & Anr.
Respondent: State of Bihar
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2000
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 27, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 306 with Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3, 4 – Unnatural death at in-law’s house – PWs going to take deceased for joining a wedding – In-laws not allowing her to go as stated to be ill – Door closed and PWs not allowed to meet her – Exact reason for disallowing not clear – No evidence to show that accused instigated for committing suicide or in any manner, aided by any act or illegal omission – Deceased found lying on cot with a bottle of ‘sulphos’ lying nearby – Said bottle neither seized nor sent for chemical examination – Postmortem report not giving exact cause of death – Report of chemical examination of viscera not on record. Held that it is not proved that it was a suicidal death and accused abetted the commission of suicide, hence, acquitted. (Para 5 to 8)
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 114 with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Presumption – Drawing of inference – Single fact of deceased having died at her in-law’s house – Death unnatural. Held that this single fact is not enough to draw inference that suicide was abetted. (Para 8)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The accused appellants, respectively the son and the mother, were charged for offences under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found them guilty. On appeal, the High Court has found charge under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 not substantiated against the accused appellants and acquitted them by allowing the appeal in that regard. However, the conviction under section 306 IPC has been maintained along with sentence of four years R.I. each. Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
2. The deceased Shanti Kumari Rai was married to accused appellant – Bipin Kumar Rai in the month of May, 1984. According to the prosecution, articles worth Rs. 4,000/- and cash to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- were given by way of dowry to the in-laws. However, the in-laws persisted in demanding further dowry. The deceased Shanti Kumari was not allowed to go back to her parents’ house by the in-laws unless and until an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and a new motorcycle was given to them. On 20th April, 1986, the marriage of brother of the deceased was fixed. For that purpose, Ram Dev Rai – PW-8, father of the deceased; Ram Charitar Rai – PW-1, father’s uncle of the deceased; Ram Narayan Rai – PW-2, a neighbour of PW-8, and Ram Bishesh Rai – PW-3, son-in-law of Ram Dev Rai had gone to take the deceased so that she could participate in her brother’s marriage. The two appellants did not allow her to go. On the same day, Shanti Kumari died an unnatural death. The factum of death was reported to police. At the time of death, the two appellants and their servant Sant Lal Mahto were to be found in the house. All the three were arrested. After investigating the challan, complaint of commission of offences under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. On trial, Sant Lal Mahto was acquitted by the trial court.
3. Insofar as charge under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the accused appellants have been acquitted of the charge and therefore, we need not deal with the facts and the evidence relating thereto. We will confine ourselves to deal with the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence relevant to this charge consists of statements of four witnesses i.e. PW-1, 2, 3 and 8. Taking the statements of these four witnesses at their face value, all that these witnesses have stated is that they had gone to take Shanti Devi but she was not allowed to go with them by the accused appellants. The exact reason for which the deceased was not allowed to accompany her father and others, is doubtful inasmuch as according to Ram Dev Rai, PW-8, himself, the two accused appellants had refused the deceased Shanti Kumari to accompany them by saying that she was ill and having said so the two appellants and their servant – Sant Lal Mahto had closed the door. They were not allowed to meet the deceased and, therefore, they returned back.
4. Having carefully perused all the evidence adduced by the prosecution we are satisfied that a case under section 306 IPC cannot be said to have been made out on the evidence adduced. Under section 306 IPC, if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide is liable to be punished in accordance therewith. Abetment is defined in section 107 of the IPC as under :
“107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who–
Firstly – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 – A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
5. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, nor any facts and circumstances are available on record, from where it can be inferred that the deceased was instigated by any of the accused appellants into committing suicide or any of the accused appellants had engaged in any conspiracy of committing suicide by the deceased or any one of them had intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission, in the commission of suicide by the deceased.
6. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. Ved Bhanu Prasad. According to him, there was an abrasion over left wrist of the deceased of 1″ x %” size and except this minor injury, there was no other external or internal injury found on the body of the deceased. Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. Dr. Ved Bhanu Prasad stated that cause of death could not be ascertained and depended on the report of chemical examination of viscera. What happened to chemical examination of viscera and whether any report was received or not, is not clear from the record. The investigation officer has also not been examined by prosecution.
7. The trial court as also the High Court have built up a hypothesis of the deceased having committed the suicide by reference to the evidence of two defence witnesses who are neighbours of the accused-appellants and who had collected at the door of the appellants after the incident. They had seen Shanti Devi, the deceased, lying on a cot stating that she had consumed some tablets of insecticides in the morning. According to Ram Dev Rai – PW-8, a plastic bottle was lying near Shanti Devi in which in Hindi and English word ‘sulphos’ was written, but this bottle does not appear to have been seized and sent for examination by chemical examiner.
8. On the record, there is no material available to record a positive finding whether Shanti Kumari had suffered a suicidal death. The death could have been suicidal or accidental. As neither it is proved that the deceased died a suicidal death nor it is proved that any of the accused appellants had abetted the commission of suicide – assuming that if it was a case of suicide, in our opinion, the accused appellants could not have been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. From the singular fact of the deceased having died an unnatural death whilst in the house of her in-laws, an inference as to her having been abetted into committing suicide cannot be drawn more so when charge under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has failed and not appealed against by state or the complainant.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants under section 306, IPC and the sentence passed thereunder by the trial court and the High Court are set aside. Bipin Kumar Rai, accused appellant no. 1 is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. Meera Devi, accused appellant no. 2 is on bail. She need not surrender to her bail bonds which shall stand discharged.
1. The accused appellants, respectively the son and the mother, were charged for offences under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court found them guilty. On appeal, the High Court has found charge under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 not substantiated against the accused appellants and acquitted them by allowing the appeal in that regard. However, the conviction under section 306 IPC has been maintained along with sentence of four years R.I. each. Feeling aggrieved, the accused appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.
2. The deceased Shanti Kumari Rai was married to accused appellant – Bipin Kumar Rai in the month of May, 1984. According to the prosecution, articles worth Rs. 4,000/- and cash to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- were given by way of dowry to the in-laws. However, the in-laws persisted in demanding further dowry. The deceased Shanti Kumari was not allowed to go back to her parents’ house by the in-laws unless and until an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and a new motorcycle was given to them. On 20th April, 1986, the marriage of brother of the deceased was fixed. For that purpose, Ram Dev Rai – PW-8, father of the deceased; Ram Charitar Rai – PW-1, father’s uncle of the deceased; Ram Narayan Rai – PW-2, a neighbour of PW-8, and Ram Bishesh Rai – PW-3, son-in-law of Ram Dev Rai had gone to take the deceased so that she could participate in her brother’s marriage. The two appellants did not allow her to go. On the same day, Shanti Kumari died an unnatural death. The factum of death was reported to police. At the time of death, the two appellants and their servant Sant Lal Mahto were to be found in the house. All the three were arrested. After investigating the challan, complaint of commission of offences under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was filed. On trial, Sant Lal Mahto was acquitted by the trial court.
3. Insofar as charge under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the accused appellants have been acquitted of the charge and therefore, we need not deal with the facts and the evidence relating thereto. We will confine ourselves to deal with the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence relevant to this charge consists of statements of four witnesses i.e. PW-1, 2, 3 and 8. Taking the statements of these four witnesses at their face value, all that these witnesses have stated is that they had gone to take Shanti Devi but she was not allowed to go with them by the accused appellants. The exact reason for which the deceased was not allowed to accompany her father and others, is doubtful inasmuch as according to Ram Dev Rai, PW-8, himself, the two accused appellants had refused the deceased Shanti Kumari to accompany them by saying that she was ill and having said so the two appellants and their servant – Sant Lal Mahto had closed the door. They were not allowed to meet the deceased and, therefore, they returned back.
4. Having carefully perused all the evidence adduced by the prosecution we are satisfied that a case under section 306 IPC cannot be said to have been made out on the evidence adduced. Under section 306 IPC, if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide is liable to be punished in accordance therewith. Abetment is defined in section 107 of the IPC as under :
“107. Abetment of a thing – A person abets the doing of a thing, who–
Firstly – Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly – Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1 – A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
5. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, nor any facts and circumstances are available on record, from where it can be inferred that the deceased was instigated by any of the accused appellants into committing suicide or any of the accused appellants had engaged in any conspiracy of committing suicide by the deceased or any one of them had intentionally aided, by any act or illegal omission, in the commission of suicide by the deceased.
6. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was performed by Dr. Ved Bhanu Prasad. According to him, there was an abrasion over left wrist of the deceased of 1″ x %” size and except this minor injury, there was no other external or internal injury found on the body of the deceased. Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. Dr. Ved Bhanu Prasad stated that cause of death could not be ascertained and depended on the report of chemical examination of viscera. What happened to chemical examination of viscera and whether any report was received or not, is not clear from the record. The investigation officer has also not been examined by prosecution.
7. The trial court as also the High Court have built up a hypothesis of the deceased having committed the suicide by reference to the evidence of two defence witnesses who are neighbours of the accused-appellants and who had collected at the door of the appellants after the incident. They had seen Shanti Devi, the deceased, lying on a cot stating that she had consumed some tablets of insecticides in the morning. According to Ram Dev Rai – PW-8, a plastic bottle was lying near Shanti Devi in which in Hindi and English word ‘sulphos’ was written, but this bottle does not appear to have been seized and sent for examination by chemical examiner.
8. On the record, there is no material available to record a positive finding whether Shanti Kumari had suffered a suicidal death. The death could have been suicidal or accidental. As neither it is proved that the deceased died a suicidal death nor it is proved that any of the accused appellants had abetted the commission of suicide – assuming that if it was a case of suicide, in our opinion, the accused appellants could not have been held guilty of an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. From the singular fact of the deceased having died an unnatural death whilst in the house of her in-laws, an inference as to her having been abetted into committing suicide cannot be drawn more so when charge under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act has failed and not appealed against by state or the complainant.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the accused appellants under section 306, IPC and the sentence passed thereunder by the trial court and the High Court are set aside. Bipin Kumar Rai, accused appellant no. 1 is in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith. Meera Devi, accused appellant no. 2 is on bail. She need not surrender to her bail bonds which shall stand discharged.
