The learned Single Judge has also rightly supported the decision of the Sessions Judge in holding that the material on record was insufficient to even prima facie indicate the complicity of Sangeeta in the alleged offences of cruelty and abetment ..

The learned Single Judge has also rightly supported the decision of the Sessions Judge in holding that the material on record was insufficient to even prima facie indicate the complicity of Sangeeta in the alleged offences of cruelty and abetment of suicide. We entirely agree with the conclusion arrived in the impugned Order to the effect that a prima facie case justifying the trial of the Lajja Shankar, Meera and Sherish have been established and that the Sessions Judge erred in discharging these three persons. Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed being devoid of merits. We would have imposed exemplary costs on the Appellants in these proceedings but for the fact that the impugned Order reverses the order passed by the Sessions Court. In other words if we had been confronted with concurrent findings punitive costs would have followed

It has come out in evidence that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years i.e. before 15.3.1993, the date of incident. This fact is fortified by the evidence of Dr. Kuldeep, who was examined as DW1. He deposed that the dec..

It has come out in evidence that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years i.e. before 15.3.1993, the date of incident. This fact is fortified by the evidence of Dr. Kuldeep, who was examined as DW1. He deposed that the deceased was suffering from Epilepsy and was under his treatment from 23.12.1992 to 2.4.1993 at Kuldeep Hospital, Ambala City. His evidence was brushed aside by the trial Court on the ground that Dr. Kuldeep was not a Psychiatrist. It may be noted that Epilepsy is not a Psychiatrist problem. It is a disease of nerves system and a MD (Medicine) could treat the patient of Epilepsy. The reasoning given by the trial Court for brushing aside the evidence of DW1 cannot be sustained. Therefore, the possibility of an accidental death, since she was suffering from Epilepsy, cannot Page 2626be ruled out. Evidently, she was in the kitchen and, might be, during cooking she might have suffered Epileptic symptoms and fell down on the gas stove and might have caught fire, resulting her ultimate death. - DW2, ASI Ram Mohan, the Investigating Officer of the case, deposed that he had recorded the statements of the deceased wherein she had stated that she was suffering from Epilepsy for the last three years before the incident and that on 15.9.1993 while she was preparing meals on stove, she had an attack of fits and fell on the stove and caught fire. She had also deposed at that time that her husband was away at duty at Madhuban, Karnal. In our view, the evidence of DW2 has to be appreciated in the light of overall facts and circumstances of the case. 

Code of Criminal Prcedure, 1973

Indian Penal Code, 1860

From the evidence of record available before us, we find that the prosecution witnesses have in their testimonies stated that the deceased was tortured both physically and mentally by the appellant for the first time after his marriage with the de..

From the evidence of record available before us, we find that the prosecution witnesses have in their testimonies stated that the deceased was tortured both physically and mentally by the appellant for the first time after his marriage with the deceased when he was refused permission for marriage with said Anita by the deceased. On having been refused the permission for his second marriage with Anita, the appellant 14again, after a few days requested the deceased to accede to his request for marriage with Anita, which request was again refused by the deceased. Consequent to the said position and due to the adamant position taken by the deceased, cruelty was meted out to her by the accused which fact is sufficiently proved from the evidence on record. Therefore, we find no reason to take a different view than what has been taken by the trial Court and the High Court as far as Section 498A IPC is concerned. Accordingly, the present appeal is hereby partly allowed. We hereby set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 but uphold the conviction of the appellant under section 498A. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities within 15 days from today to serve out the remaining sentence under Section 498A, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.

The High Court has recorded a firm finding that the harassment was not for or in connection with any de AND s for dowry. But, at the same time, the High Court has concluded that the wife committed suicide due to the harassment of the app..

The High Court has recorded a firm finding that the harassment was not for or in connection with any de AND s for dowry. But, at the same time, the High Court has concluded that the wife committed suicide due to the harassment of the appellant, in particular. The deceased had committed suicide by drinking Organo Phosphorus poison. In such circumstances, the High Court was, therefore, fully justified in convicting the appellant u/s 306 IPC. [para 9-10] [118-E-H; 119-A-D] 2.1. It cannot be said that the appellant could not have been convicted u/s 306 IPC in the absence of a charge being framed against him under the said section. Both the trial court AND the High Court have held that the deceased had committed suicide. Therefore, the nature of the offence u/s 304-B AND 306 IPC are not distinct AND different categories. Mere omission or defect in framing charge would not disable the court from convicting the accused for the offence which has been found to be proved on the basis of the evidence on record. In such circumstances, the matter would fall within the purview of ss. 221 (1) AND (2) Cr.P.C. The High Court upon meticulous scrutiny of the entire evidence on record rightly concluded that there was no evidence to indicate the commission of the offence punishable u/s 304-B IPC. It was also observed that the deceased had committed suicide due to harassment meted out to her by the appellant but there was no evidence on record to suggest that such harassment or cruelty was made in connection to any dowry de AND s. Thus, cruelty or harassment sans any dowry de AND s which drives the wife to commit suicide attracts the offence of `abetment of suicide' u/s 306 IPC AND not s. 304-B IPC which defines the offence AND punishment for `dowry death'. 

Court found that the wilful conduct referred to above should be of such a nature as would provoke a person of common prudence to commit suicide and a difference of opinion within a family on everyday mundane matters would not fall within that cate..

Court found that the wilful conduct referred to above should be of such a nature as would provoke a person of common prudence to commit suicide and a difference of opinion within a family on everyday mundane matters would not fall within that category. We find that merely because the appellants were of the opinion that the deceased, as a good daughter-in-law, should look after them in old age could not be said to an abetment of suicide. The presumption against the appellants raised under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot thus be drawn. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court's judgment suffers from serious contradictions. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellants before us. Their bail bonds be discharged.

In the instant case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty of the nature described in clause (b) of Explanation to s.Show

In the instant case, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had subjected the deceased to cruelty of the nature described in clause (b) of Explanation to s.498A, IPC, as there is no allegation that the appellant had harassed her with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or that he subjected her to harassment on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. [para 8] 1.3 As regards Clause (a) of the Explanation to s. 498A, the High Court has relied on Ext. 47 i.e. a written undertaking dated 13.4.1988 given by appellant to give equal treatment to both his wives. Exts. 47 is an evidence of some misbehaviour of the appellant towards the deceased but the nature of the misbehaviour has not been stated in it. Besides, the drowning of the deceased took place three months after Ext. 47 had been execuited. For holding the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 306 and 498A, IPC, there must be evidence of wilful conduct of the appellant towards the deceased soon before her death which could have driven her to commit suicide. The post mortem examination report of deceased described her as `well nourished' and the last meal was taken by her within six hours. Moreover, the post mortem examination report does not show that the deceased was subjected to any severe beating before her death. [para 11and 13] 1.4 Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of any wilful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. Rather, there appears to be some evidence in the depositions of PW-1 and PW-4 (father and sister of the deceased) that the deceased was sad due to a daughter being born to her and a son being born to the first wife of the appellant. These circumstances may have driven her to commit suicide by jumping into the well along with her daughter. Such a consequence from the mental state of the deceased cannot be a ground for holding the appellant guilty of cruelty within the meaning of clause (a) of the Explanation to s.498A, IPC. Therefore, the presumption u/s 113A is not attracted and the appellant cannot also be held guilty of abetting the suicide of the deceased.