Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.@mdashAs identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of the indicated appeals,
arising out of the same very impugned decision, by means of this common judgment in order to avoid the repetition.
2. The matrix of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant
appeals and emanating from the record, is that, the marriage of appellant-convict Ishwar Singh was solemnized with Smt. Mangi Devi (deceased),
according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in the month of April, 1989. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together and cohabited as
husband & wife. Their first child was son, who died shortly after his birth. Thereafter, two daughters were born out of their wedlock, who were six
years and six months old respectively at the time of occurrence. The sufficient dowry articles, including ornaments and customary gifts, were stated
to have been given by the parents of the deceased at the time of marriage and on the eve of birth of daughters, but the appellant-convict was not
satisfied. The prosecution claimed that he used to taunt, harass and beat the deceased for giving birth to two daughters instead of a son. Ultimately,
Smt. Mangi Devi was turned out of the matrimonial home.
3. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that on the night intervening of 15.11.1998, Amrit Singh, brother of the appellant-convict, had
gone to the house of complainant Randhir Singh (P.W. 6) and told him that his sister Smt. Mangi Devi, had consumed some poisonous tablets. She
was admitted in City Hospital, Tohana. After receiving the information, the complainant & his brother Sewa Singh reached and noticed the dead
body of Mangi Devi lying in the hospital She was stated to have committed suicide as her life was made miserable by the appellant-convict.
4. Leveling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that the appellant-convict had treated
Smt. Mangi Devi with cruelty and she had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. In the background of these allegations and
in the wake of complaint of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the appellant-convict, vide F.I.R. No. 361 dated 16.11.1998
on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC by the police of Police Station City Tohana, District Hisar in the manner
depicted here-in-above.
5. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan). Accordingly, the appellant-convict was charge-
sheeted for the commission of indicated offence by the trial Court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge framed against the appellant-convict, examined P.W. 1 Dr. Vinod Gupta, P.W. 2 Dr.
Aswani Kumar, P.W. 3 Ranjor Singh Constable, P.W. 4 Om Parkash HC, P.W. 5 Chhatar Pal Singh, MHC, P.W. 6 complainant Randhir Singh,
P.W. 7 Lakhmi Chand, P.W. 8 Gulshan Kumar ASI and P.W. 9 Sita Ram Patwari in oral evidence. The prosecution has also placed reliance on
the application of police (Ex. PD), application for post mortem (Ex. PE/1), death report EEx. PF), rough site plan (Ex. PN), application of police
regarding report (Ex. PH), report of doctor (Ex. PH/1), affidavit of C. Ranjor Singh (Ex. PK), affidavit of HC Chhatar Pal Singh (Ex. PL), ruqqa
(Ex. PM), endorsement (Ex. PM/1), F.I.R. (Ex. PM/2), recovery memo. (Ex. PO) and site plan prepared by the Patwari (Ex. PR) in documentary
evidence.
7. Having concluded the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant-convict was recorded. The entire incriminating evidence was put to
enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence, as contemplated u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He has stoutly denied the
prosecution evidence in its entirety and pleaded false implication. He has adopted a specific line of defence that he had always treated his wife with
love & affection and never taunted, harassed & maltreated her with cruelty. She was suffering from chronic abdominal pain and was got treated by
him. She got frustrated due to her ailment and committed suicide by consuming poisonous tablets. It was claimed that he had taken life insurance
policy (Ex. DF), in which, he had nominated his deceased wife as the nominee/beneficiary. The appellant-convict has also brought on record the
medical treatment record of the deceased (Ex. PG/1 to Ex. PG 17).
8. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the appellant-convict was acquitted for the commission of an offence punishable u/s.
306 IPC. However, at the same time, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, to pay a fine
of Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year u/s 498-A IPC by the trial Court, by way of
impugned judgment of conviction dated 6.10.1999 and order of sentence dated 7.10.1999.
9. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Haryana has preferred the appeal (CRA No. 1012-SBA of 2000) to challenge his acquittal u/s. 306 IPC,
whereas the appellant-convict has filed the separate appeal (CRA No. 978-SB of 1999) to assail his conviction & sentence u/s. 498-A IPC as
well. That is how I am seized of the matter.
10. At the very outset, what cannot possibly be disputed here is that all the cogent cardinal fundamental principles and basic rules of criminal
law/jurisprudence, have to be kept in focus while deciding such criminal cases. Some of these are that the absolute onus is always on the
prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused cannot possibly be convicted without any substantive evidence as the
evidence IS essential element in the criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations alleged against him. The criminal
proceedings require strict proof of guilt. It is the legal evidence, on the basis of which, the decision of a criminal court is based and is the legal
requirement of criminal justice. Otherwise, in the absence of cogent substantive evidence, the Courts have no option, but to record an order of
acquittal howsoever painful the same may be.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over
the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeals.
12. Ex facie, the argument of learned State counsel that there is ample evidence on record to suggest that the appellant-convict has taunted, gave
beating and treated his wife Mangi Devi with cruelty and compelled her to commit suicide, is neither tenable nor the observations of Hon''ble Apex
Court in case The State of Punjab Vs. Iqbal Singh and others, and of this Court in case State of Punjab versus Kashmir Singh 1994 (3) RCR
(Crl.) 538, are at all applicable to the facts of the instant case, wherein husband (therein) persistently made dowry demand from the wife, was
beating, harassing her and creating atmosphere of terror for her. The wife ultimately setting herself and her three children ablaze. On the peculiar
facts and in the special circumstances of the cases, it was ruled that the offence u/s. 306 IPC is made out.
13. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the observations contained in the aforesaid judgments, but, to me, the same would not come to the
rescue of the State in the present controversy.
14. As indicated here-in-above, the appellant-convict was charge-sheeted for the commission of an offence of abetment. Section 306 IPC
postulates that ""If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished therein."" The abetment of a thing
has been defined u/s. 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing; or 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 intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
15. Sequelly, Section 108 IPC posits that a person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act
which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the
abettor.
16. A conjoint and meaningful reading of these provisions would reveal that in order to attract the penal provisions of section 306 IPC, there
should be a positive evidence on record that appellant Ishwar Singh intentionally hatched a conspiracy or actually/actively aided and abetted in
such a manner, leaving no option for Mangi Devi to commit suicide.
17. Meaning thereby, there has to be a clear mens rea, active participation or direct act and intention to provoke, incite or encourage to do an act
by the accused, which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
grave position that he committed suicide. The knowledge, intention, mens rea, positive active participation leaving no option and compelling a
person to commit suicide, inter-alia, are the essential ingredients to convict a person u/s. 306 IPC.
18. Such thus being the legal position and evidence on record, now the short and significant question, though very important, that arises for
determination in these appeals is, as to whether the appellant-convict, was instrumental and abetted Mangi Devi to commit suicide or not?
19. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to my mind, since all the essential ingredients of section 306 IPC are
totally lacking and are not borne out from the evidence on record, so, the trial Court has rightly acquitted him of the charge framed against him u/s.
306 IPC in this context.
20. As is evident from the record, that the marriage of appellant convict was solemnized with Smt. Mangi Devi (deceased), according to Hindu
rites and ceremonies in the month of April, 1989. After solemnization of the marriage, they resided together and cohabited as husband & wife.
Their first child was son, who died shortly after his birth. Thereafter, two daughters were born out of their wedlock, who were six years and six
month sold respectively at the time of occurrence. The sufficient dowry articles, including ornaments and customary gifts, were stated to have been
given by the parents of the deceased at the time of marriage and on the eve of birth of daughters. She committed suicide by consuming some
poisonous substance. This fact is proved from the medical evidence of P.W. 1 Dr. Vinod Gupta, who treated the deceased in City Hospital,
Tohana and P.W. 2 Dr. Aswani Kumar, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body, vide report (Ex. PG). P.W. 6 Randhir
Singh and P.W. 7 Lakhmi Chand have also so maintained in their respective statements. Moreover, P.W. 6 in his cross-examination has admitted
that the appellant-convict had donated two bottles of blood to his wife Mangi Devi for transfusing after the birth of (sic) daughter. Not only that, in
the life insurance policy (Ex. DF), he nominated his wife as his nominee and beneficiary. Thus, the submission of learned counsel that the appellant
had love & affection with his wife and he donated blood to her, which dislodges the prosecution version and proves the defence version, has
considerable force.
21. Not only that, the manner of the statements of P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 mainly is that the appellant-convict harassed and treated the deceased only
for the reason that she gave birth to two daughters and failed to beget a son. If their entire statements are put together and believed to be true as
such for the sake of argument, even then, all that stands proved from their statements is that Mangi Devi was not treated well. She was turned out
of the matrimonial home. However, there is not an iota of evidence on record that she was treated with such type of cruelty in regard to birth of
two daughters within a period of six months from the commission of suicide by her. The evidence on record would reveal that last act of cruelty
alleged was six months before her death.
22. There is also not an iota of evidence on record even to suggest remotely that how, at what time, when and in what manner, the appellant-
convict had knowledge, intention, mens rea or actually abetted Mangi Devi to commit suicide on the relevant day.
23. On the contrary, it has come on record that the deceased was suffering from chronic disease of abdominal pain as per her medical records
(Ex. PG/1 to Ex. PG/7). The appellant-convict donated blood to her. Moreover, in the life insurance policy (Ex. DF), he nominated his wife as his
nominee and beneficiary. The last act of alleged cruelty as projected by P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 is six months prior to the present occurrence. Under
these circumstances, as all the essential ingredients of section 306 IPC are deeply missing, therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that the appellant-
convict had compelled the deceased to; commit suicide. Therefore, to me, the trial Court has rightly acquitted him for the commission of offence
u/s. 306 IPC. The learned State counsel did not point out any ground/reason, muchless cogent, to interfere in the well articulated judgment of the
trial Court in this respect.
24. Now adverting to the appeal of appellant-convict, there is ample and reliable evidence on record as discussed here-in-above to prove that he
had taunted, harassed and treated his wife Mangi Devi with menial and physical cruelty. P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 have so maintained that she was
taunted, harassed and beaten up several times by the appellant convict and ultimately turned her out of the matrimonial home. The evidence on
record is reliable and convincing in this relevant connection.
25. Therefore, if the entire evidence of prosecution is perused and put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inescapable that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove all the essential ingredients, as contemplated u/s. 306 IPC. However, at the same time, it has duly proved
the charge against the appellant-convict u/s. 498-A IPC. Hence, to me, the trial Court has rightly acquitted him u/s. 306 IPC and correctly
convicted him u/s. 498-A IPC, in the manner indicated here-in-above.
26. Paced with the situation, learned counsel has fairly acknowledged that he will not be in a position to contest the conviction of the appellant-
convict any more u/s. 498-A IPC, in view of the pointed cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Since no other legal infirmity has
been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-convict, so, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine deserve
to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
27. Be that as it may, however, the argument of learned counsel that as the appellant has old mother of 75 years of age and is not a previous
convict, therefore, he prayed for reduction in the period of sentence in view of ratio of law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case
Mohd. Hoshan and Another Vs. State of A.P., and of this Court in case Kashmiri Lal Vs. State of Haryana, .
28. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties, to my mind, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub served if
the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant-convict by the trial Court is reduced, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-
(i) The occurrence in this case is of 15.11.1998 and he has already suffered and faced the pangs of protracted trial & appeal for the last more than
14 years.
(ii) He has old mother of 75 years of age. She was suffering from Tuberculosis.
(iii) He has lost his father.
(iv) His two brothers are in the army. There is no adult member to look after his family.
(v) He is on bail.
(vi) As per custody certificate, the appellant has already undergone the period of his substantive sentence of ten months, out of the total awarded
sentence of imprisonment of two years.
(vii) He is a first offender and is not a previous convict except the present matrimonial dispute.
29. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the appeals filed by the State and appellant-convict are hereby dismissed and
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of fine imposed on the appellant-convict are maintained. However, taking into
consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the sentence of imprisonment of
two years is reduced to ten months already undergone by him. Accordingly, the impugned order of sentence is modified to the extent and in the
manner depicted here-in-before.
30. Needless to say that necessary consequences & compliance will naturally follow accordingly.
