Anil Kumar Vs. State of Punjab
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 531/1992
Petitioner: Anil Kumar
Respondent: State of Punjab
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 531/1992
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 28, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 306 – Suicide – Abetment to commit suicide – Husband charge for wife’s death under Section 306 – Sessions court finding prosecution evidence to be unreliable and also the fact that none of the witnesses of the locality where the event took place been exam-ined by prosecution, acquitting the husband – High Court setting aside acquittal and convicting accused – Legality. Held High Court not having considered the reasons and grounds on which sessions judge acquitted the accused and having entered into an arena of surmises and conjectures, was not justified in interfer-ing with the acquittal recorded by sessions judge. Conviction set aside and order of acquittal restored.
(Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Appellant Anil Kumar stood charged under Section 306 I.P.C. for having abetted the commission of offence of suicide by his wife Renu Bala on the fateful day of 29.10.1985. According to the prosecution case the accused and the deceased were neighbours and they developed intimacy among them. But when the question of their marriage came up, the parents of the deceased did not like the idea and persuaded the deceased not to marry the accused. But on account of close intimacy between the accused and the de-ceased, and on the insistence of the deceased the marriage took place on 14th August, 1985 without much pomp and show. But soon after the marriage the accused put pressure on his wife the deceased to get money from the parents- in-law and in fact on such demand being made, the father-in-law PW.7 gave a Television and Refrigerator. But soon thereafter when the further demand of Rs. 20, 000/- was made PW.7 pleaded inability and wanted some time so that the money could be arranged and given. Then the further prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence at 12.00 noon the accused and the deceased quarrelled among themselves on ac-count of the fact that the father of the deceased did not give the money demanded and then both of them went to their room in the upstairs and bolted the room from inside and thereafter, a hue and cry was raised whereupon the PWs. 7 and 13 rushed to the place of occurrence and found the room being ablazed while being bolted from inside. The room was then broken up and accused was found inside the room while the deceased was burning. Then the deceased was removed to the hospital, and on the basis of infor-mation given by PW.7 the police registered a case. The deceased died on the next morning, and thereafter on completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet on the basis of which accused was tried for the offence, as already stated. The learned sessions judge examined the evidence on record and came to hold that the investigation itself had not been fairly done which is apparent from the fact that even when the deceased was still alive a case has been registered under Section 306 IPC. The sessions judge also considered the material omissions in the statement of PWs.7 and 13 before the police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and came to the conclusion that such material omissions amount to contradiction and have been duly confronted to the witness for which no explanation has been offered, and therefore, it would be unsafe to rely on the said testimony to base a conviction of the accused of the charges levelled against him. The sessions judge also came to the conclu-sion that the time gap between the date of marriage and the alleged occurrence is such that it militates against any demand for financial assistance. The evidence of PW.7 that he had given a television and refrigerator was belied by the fact that no such seizure was made by the police in course of investigation from the house of the accused, the non-examination of one Sudershan, who is alleged to be the witness who saw the accused and the deceased going to the upstairs and bolted the room from inside and whereafter the room was seen ablazed was also considered to be fatal to the prosecution and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for non-examination of said Sudershan. The learned sessions judge also commented upon the fact that though the occurrence took place in a busy locality yet none of the witnesses of the locality was examined by the prosecution. Final-ly, the learned sessions judge also taking into consideration the fact that the very prosecution case unfolded from the evidence of PWs.7 and 13 that the room had been bolted from inside and was seen ablazed and it is PW.7 who broke open the room and found the accused inside the room is not believable as there has been no sign of any breaking of the door and the investigation is totally silent on that aspect of the matter. Taking all the factors into consideration and having recorded a finding that evidence of PWs. 7 and 13 are not reliable, the sessions judge recorded an order of acquittal. On appeal, the High Court without examining the reasons on which the learned sessions judge recorded an order of acquittal and without focusing its attention to the veracity of the two main witnesses PWs.7 and 13, on mere surmises and conjectures, set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appell-ant of the offence under Section 306, and hence the present appeal.
2. Mr. Tulsi, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the ap-pellant contended that though the power of the appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal is the same as against the conviction but the appellate court is duty bound to focus his attention to reasons advanced by the learned trial judge in discarding the testimony of the witnesses and the circumstances under which the trial judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and the same not having been done, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Mr. Tulsi also further contended that a bare perusal of the evidence of PWs.7 and 13 would unequivocally in-dicate that they are wholly unreliable witnesses which is appar-ent from the omissions in their statement recorded under Section 161 and the High Court has merely brushed aside the same and then recorded the conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 306. The learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that the High Court as Court of Appeal was well within its power to interfere with an order of acquittal and good reasons having been given, the same could not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. To appreciate the correctness of the rival conten-tions, we have been taken through the judgment of the learned sessions judge as well as that of the High Court which clearly reveals that the High Court has not considered the reasons and grounds on which the learned sessions judge discarded the testi-mony of the two witnesses PWs.7 and 13 as well as the circum-stances which led the sessions judge to come to the conclusion that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the High Court has entered into an arena of surmises and conjectures and has interfered with an order of acquittal recorded by the sessions judge. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that within the parameters prescribed for interference with an order of acquittal, the High Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction, moreso, by not examining the grounds and reasons on which the Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of the two witnesses PWs.7 and 13 and also the circum-stances which belied the prosecution case. That apart, we have also ourselves scrutinised the evidence of PWs.7 and 13 and from the cross-examination of these witnesses it appears that the most material part of their evidence in Court had not been deposed to while being examined under Section 161, and therefore by no stretch of imagination, two witnesses can be held to be reliable witnesses so that the prosecution can rely upon their testimony for a conviction of the accused appellant. In the aforesaid premises, it must be held that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to be acquitted. We, therefore, set aside the im-pugned judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds stands cancelled. The appeal is allowed ac-cordingly.
1. Appellant Anil Kumar stood charged under Section 306 I.P.C. for having abetted the commission of offence of suicide by his wife Renu Bala on the fateful day of 29.10.1985. According to the prosecution case the accused and the deceased were neighbours and they developed intimacy among them. But when the question of their marriage came up, the parents of the deceased did not like the idea and persuaded the deceased not to marry the accused. But on account of close intimacy between the accused and the de-ceased, and on the insistence of the deceased the marriage took place on 14th August, 1985 without much pomp and show. But soon after the marriage the accused put pressure on his wife the deceased to get money from the parents- in-law and in fact on such demand being made, the father-in-law PW.7 gave a Television and Refrigerator. But soon thereafter when the further demand of Rs. 20, 000/- was made PW.7 pleaded inability and wanted some time so that the money could be arranged and given. Then the further prosecution case is that on the date of occurrence at 12.00 noon the accused and the deceased quarrelled among themselves on ac-count of the fact that the father of the deceased did not give the money demanded and then both of them went to their room in the upstairs and bolted the room from inside and thereafter, a hue and cry was raised whereupon the PWs. 7 and 13 rushed to the place of occurrence and found the room being ablazed while being bolted from inside. The room was then broken up and accused was found inside the room while the deceased was burning. Then the deceased was removed to the hospital, and on the basis of infor-mation given by PW.7 the police registered a case. The deceased died on the next morning, and thereafter on completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet on the basis of which accused was tried for the offence, as already stated. The learned sessions judge examined the evidence on record and came to hold that the investigation itself had not been fairly done which is apparent from the fact that even when the deceased was still alive a case has been registered under Section 306 IPC. The sessions judge also considered the material omissions in the statement of PWs.7 and 13 before the police under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code and came to the conclusion that such material omissions amount to contradiction and have been duly confronted to the witness for which no explanation has been offered, and therefore, it would be unsafe to rely on the said testimony to base a conviction of the accused of the charges levelled against him. The sessions judge also came to the conclu-sion that the time gap between the date of marriage and the alleged occurrence is such that it militates against any demand for financial assistance. The evidence of PW.7 that he had given a television and refrigerator was belied by the fact that no such seizure was made by the police in course of investigation from the house of the accused, the non-examination of one Sudershan, who is alleged to be the witness who saw the accused and the deceased going to the upstairs and bolted the room from inside and whereafter the room was seen ablazed was also considered to be fatal to the prosecution and no explanation has been offered by the prosecution for non-examination of said Sudershan. The learned sessions judge also commented upon the fact that though the occurrence took place in a busy locality yet none of the witnesses of the locality was examined by the prosecution. Final-ly, the learned sessions judge also taking into consideration the fact that the very prosecution case unfolded from the evidence of PWs.7 and 13 that the room had been bolted from inside and was seen ablazed and it is PW.7 who broke open the room and found the accused inside the room is not believable as there has been no sign of any breaking of the door and the investigation is totally silent on that aspect of the matter. Taking all the factors into consideration and having recorded a finding that evidence of PWs. 7 and 13 are not reliable, the sessions judge recorded an order of acquittal. On appeal, the High Court without examining the reasons on which the learned sessions judge recorded an order of acquittal and without focusing its attention to the veracity of the two main witnesses PWs.7 and 13, on mere surmises and conjectures, set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appell-ant of the offence under Section 306, and hence the present appeal.
2. Mr. Tulsi, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the ap-pellant contended that though the power of the appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal is the same as against the conviction but the appellate court is duty bound to focus his attention to reasons advanced by the learned trial judge in discarding the testimony of the witnesses and the circumstances under which the trial judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and the same not having been done, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Mr. Tulsi also further contended that a bare perusal of the evidence of PWs.7 and 13 would unequivocally in-dicate that they are wholly unreliable witnesses which is appar-ent from the omissions in their statement recorded under Section 161 and the High Court has merely brushed aside the same and then recorded the conviction of the appellant of the offence under Section 306. The learned Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, contended that the High Court as Court of Appeal was well within its power to interfere with an order of acquittal and good reasons having been given, the same could not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. To appreciate the correctness of the rival conten-tions, we have been taken through the judgment of the learned sessions judge as well as that of the High Court which clearly reveals that the High Court has not considered the reasons and grounds on which the learned sessions judge discarded the testi-mony of the two witnesses PWs.7 and 13 as well as the circum-stances which led the sessions judge to come to the conclusion that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the High Court has entered into an arena of surmises and conjectures and has interfered with an order of acquittal recorded by the sessions judge. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that within the parameters prescribed for interference with an order of acquittal, the High Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction, moreso, by not examining the grounds and reasons on which the Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of the two witnesses PWs.7 and 13 and also the circum-stances which belied the prosecution case. That apart, we have also ourselves scrutinised the evidence of PWs.7 and 13 and from the cross-examination of these witnesses it appears that the most material part of their evidence in Court had not been deposed to while being examined under Section 161, and therefore by no stretch of imagination, two witnesses can be held to be reliable witnesses so that the prosecution can rely upon their testimony for a conviction of the accused appellant. In the aforesaid premises, it must be held that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to be acquitted. We, therefore, set aside the im-pugned judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds stands cancelled. The appeal is allowed ac-cordingly.
