S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 16th November, 1982, whereby Ashok Kumar husband and Bimla Devi motherinlaw of Vijay Lakshmi deceased were acquitted of the charge under S. 306 of the Indian Penal Code framed against them for abetting commission of suicide by Vijay Lakshmi.
2. In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this case, as emerge from the first information report recorded on the basis of the statement of Smt. Pushpawati mother of the deceased are that her daughter Vijay Lakshmi was married to Ashok Kumar accused about four years back. Ashok Kumar used to tease her that she had very little education. Due to the harassment Vijay Lakshmi came back to her parental house. She was again sent back to the house of Ashok Kumar on the intervention of her uncle Chaman Lal. She gave birth to two sons. The elder son used to reside with his grandmother whereas her second son was living with Pushpa Wati as her son in law did not own that child as his own son. The second son at the time of occurrence was about two years of age. After the birth of second child, Vijay Lakshmi was again sent to her inlaws where both Ashok Kumar and Bimla Devi accused gave her beatings and turned her out of their house. About six months prior to the present occurrence Chaman Lal uncle of the deceased sent her along with the Panchayat again to the house of her inlaws. Latter would send message about maltreatment meted to her, to her mother, who was anxious to settle her daughter. On 241981 at about 12 noon Pushpa Wati learned that Vijay Lakshmi with burn injuries was admitted in the Old Daya Nand Hospital, Ludhiana. She along with her brother Harbans Lal went to the said hospital and found that Vijay Lakshmi was lying admitted there with burn injuries. The latter was asking for water and also raised roula loudly that she was hungry for the last two days. At that time, smell of kerosene oil was coming from the clothes and body of Vijay Lakshmi. Chaman Lal also told Pushpawati that earlier in the day he had received telephonic message from Ashok Kumar accused that the latter had a quarrel with Vijay Lakshmi on that day and Chaman Lal had told Ashok Kumar to settle the dispute himself. According to Pushpawati her soninlaw Ashok Kumar and his mother Bimla Devi used to harass her daughter Vijay Lakshmi and several times quarrel took place in her presence. Both Ashok Kumar and Bimla Devi used to taunt Vijay Lakshmi that either she should die by drowning herself or set herself on fire. But she kept all these facts to herself and on the day of occurrence also they harassed her daughter to commit suicide. Pushpawati further stated that Ashok Kumar her soninlaw had demanded Rs. 10,000/ from them for going abroad. Vijay Lakshmi was got admitted in the hospital by Ashwani Kumar, her cousin brother at about 1.15 P.M. with 95 burns, as a result of which she died on the same evening at about 6.20 P.M. without giving any positive information to the police or to Gurdev Singh, Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana concerning the manner in which she received burn injuries. ASI Sant Singh then recorded the statement of Pushpa Wati PW and on its basis formal FIR was recorded at the Police Station at 7 P.M. on the same evening. Postmortem revealed that the death was due to shock resulting in extensive burns which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After completion of the investigation both the accused were challaned, tried and acquitted, as stated earlier.
3. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
4. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the deceased was teased, taunted and maltreated for bringing inadequate dowry; secondly she was not well educated and thirdly because Ashok Kumar repeatedly demanded money from the parents of the deceased and accused did not own second child born to the deceased, as his own child.
5. It is significant to note that there is no mention either in the first information report, or in the statement of Chaman Lal PW recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the deceased had brought inadequate dowry. As far as the question of demand of money by the accused is concerned, there is no specific mention about the two demands of Rs. 500/ each or another demand of Rs. 2500/ by Ashok Kumar accused from the deceased or her parents. In the first information report the only allegation is with regard to the demand of Rs. 10,000/ for going abroad. This demand was admittedly not met by the parents of the deceased. There is also contradiction in the testimony of Pushpawati and Chaman Lal PWs concerning the time and the person before whom such demand was made. According to Pushpawati PW this demand was made one month prior to the present occurrence and she told about it to Chaman Lal PW. On the other hand, Chaman Lal PW deposed that the demand was made four months earlier before the Panchayat. It does not sound natural or probable that the accused would make such a demand before the Panchayat. Besides, according to Chaman Lal, PW the accused had merely told them that Ashok Kumar wanted to go abroad and he needed As. 10,000/ from them (the complainant party), if they could afford. The allegations made by the complainant side that Ashok Kumar accused doubted the paternity of his second child from the deceasedwife or still preferred to live with them for a sufficiently long time and at the same time asked his deceased wife to bring money from her parents are quite contradictory. Testimony of Pushpawati and Chaman Lal uncle of the deceased in this respect is not worthy of credence. In the absence of any legal, cogent or reliable evidence that the accused had persistently maltreated or harassed or coerced the deceased for not fulfilling the demand of Rs. 10,000/ no adverse inference in the facts and circumstances of the present case can be drawn against the accused either for instigating or abetting the commission of offences under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. As far as allegations that Ashok Kumar accused taunted the deceased that she was not well educated, is concerned, it is significant to note that the deceased her left his studies when she was in 10th class, whereas Ashok Kumar accused himself has not done better and left the studies after passing his matriculation examination. Obviously, there is no disparity in the education of husband and wife. The allegation levelled by the complainant side on this aspect of the case does not seem to be correct.
7. The third ground for maltreatment meted out to the deceased by the accused, according to the prosecution, is about the second child of the deceased, Ashok Kumar accused did not own that child to be his own. According to Pushpawati PW after birth of second child the accused took the deceased and the second child to his house and they stayed with the accused for three months before she was turned out of the house. Besides after birth of the second child both the children were taken to Chintpurni by the accused to perform Mundan ceremony. Labh Singh PW 5 who is a neighbour also admitted in his Crossexamination that before the occurrence he had seen both the children living in the house, of the accused along with their mother. The allegations wade by the complainant side that the accused had doubts about the legitimacy of second child of the deceased and Ashok Kumar accused does not seem to be true. This aspect of the case supports the defence plea that such wild allegations have been levelled against the accused in order to implicate them for the charge of instigation and abetment of commission of suicide by the deceased.
8. The allegation that the deceased did not take food for number of days before the occurrence or, on that account the accused abetted her suicide also does not seem to be correct. Pushpawati did state that the deceased was crying that she was hungry for two days. To the similar effect is the testimony of SI Sant Singh who went to the hospital for recording the statement of the deceased. Curiously enough this aspect of the case was not mentioned by SI Sant Singh neither in the inquest report, nor, he separately recorded any such dying declaration of the deceased. Thus mere mention in the endorsement of the statement of Pushpawati recorded by SI Sant Singh (main Investigating Officer) that the deceased raised roula that she had been hungry for the last about two days would hardly be of any consequence. Shri Gurdev Singh Executive Magistrate also reached (the Hospital for recording the dying declaration of the deceased at about 5.15 P.M. on 241982 and remained there till the deceased succumbed to her burn injuries without making any statement. No implicit reliance can thus be placed on the testimony of SI Sant Singh and Pushpawati that the deceased was not given food for two days. In the absence of any reliable evidence that the accused were responsible for deliberately putting her on starvation, it cannot be reasonably inferred that the accused had abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
9. For the foregoing reasons we are of the considered view that the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
