Upload
duongque
View
215
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT DIBRUGARH.
Present: Sri A.B. Siddique, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.
Sessions Case No. 146/2011.
State of Assam
Vs.
Sri Ratan Sonowal..............Accused
Appearance : Smti. Chinmoyee Dutta, Addl. Public Prosecutor......for the State.
Sri A.Rob, Advocate, ------------for the accused. Charge U/s 306 IPC.
Date of Evidence on : 01.04.2013, 30.01.2014, 16.06.2014,
01.12.2014, 06.06.2015, 12.10.2015
Date of Argument on : 08.12.2012.
Date of Judgment on : 16.01.2016.
J U D G M E N T
(1) Prosecution case in nutshell is that on 13.09.2009 one Smti. Debojani
Sonowal, has lodged an Ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge, Duliajan P.S. to
the effect that his daughter Munmi Sonowal (Munmi) got socially married to the
accused Ratan Sonowal (Biju) . After her marriage she was subjected to
torture and cruelty demanding dowry. The accused demanded Rs. 2 lac as dowry
and subjected her physical and mental torture. On 3.8.09 the daughter of the
informant being unable to bear the torture came back to the house of the
informant and told about the torture meted out to her by the accused. Again on
10.09.2009 being unable to bear the torture of her husband she committed
suicide by hanging herself. Accordingly a case was registered at Duliajan P.S.
being Duliajan P.S. case No. 190/09 U/s 306, IPC and commenced investigation.
2
During investigation the accused was arrested and evidence against the accused
was collected and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet U/s
306, IPC against the accused person.
(2) The accused person was produced before the lower Court and after
furnishing him the necessary copies etc. the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions being the offence trialable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.
(3) On appearance of the accused person before the Court and after
hearing the learned counsels for both sides on the point of charge and
considering the case record and the statements of the witnesses and the
documents referred U/s 173 of Cr.P.C. formal charge U/s 306, IPC was framed
and explained to the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
(4) In order to bring home the charge against the accused person
prosecution examined ten witnesses including the victim girl and the defence
examined none. The plea of defence is of total denial. The accused person in his
statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations leveled against him
and pleaded that he is innocent.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:
(i) Whether the accused person on 10.09.09 abetted her wife to
commit suicide as alleged ?
I have heard the argument placed by the learned counsel for both sides
and perused the entire evidence on record.
DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:
(5) Let us first discuss the evidence of the informant, P.W. 1, Smti.
Debojani Sonowal, has stated that the occurrence took place on 10.09.098.
Her daughter Smti. Munmi Sonowal @ Mili was married to accused, Sri Ratan
Sonowal @ Biju Sonowal on 23rd January, 2009. Soon after the marriage, the
accused person started torture, both mental and physical, upon her daughter,
Smti. Munmi Sonowal @ Mili. On 03.08.09, accused person left his wife, Mili at
Duliajan Bus Stand. Her daughter then informed her over telephone that she
3
has been left at the bus stand and asked her to take her to their home. This
witness sent her son Sri Surajit Sonowal to take her home from Dulijan Bus
stand. Accordingly, he took the daughter of the witness to her house. On being
enquired why she has left at the bus stand, she told her that her husband
desires to marry another woman and for that reason, he left her at the bus
stand. She further stated that the accused used to perpetrate torture upon her.
She stated that her husband did not provide her proper maintenance and
required food, etc. She also stated that the accused person had d some illicit
relationship with another woman. Neither the accused nor any family member of
the accused made any correspondence with them asking welfare of her
daughter. Due to torture perpetrated upon her by the accused, her daughter
committed suicide on 10.09.09 at their house by hanging herself from a ceiling
fan. At that time, family members of their house were not present in the house.
While returning home from her duty at about 3.30 pm she detected that her
daughter committed suicide. She then called the neighboring local people and
they assembled at their house. This witness lodged an ejahar. Ext. 1 is the
ejahar and Ext. 1(1) is her signature. Her statement was also recorded u/s
164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. Ext. 2 is the said statement and Ext. 2(1) is
her signature thereon at the time of occurrence her daughter was carrying
pregnancy of 7 months.
During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that at
the time of occurrence when she came out from her house for attending her
duty, her sons were at her house. After her stay at their house at about one and
half months, the occurrence took place. During her stay at her house this
witness did not inform the matter to anybody else by writing. She denied the
suggestion that subsequently they hav fabricated a story against the accused
and lodged the Ext. 1 on 13.09.09. She also denied the suggestion that her
daughter stated nothing before him as alleged in her evidence in chief. She also
denied the suggestion that her daughter committed suicide due to mental
ailment.
(6) PW 2, Sri Luhit Bora, has stated that he has heard from the
mother of the victim girl regarding committing cruelty t the victim girl. After
4
nine month of marriage the accused brought her to Duliajan and left her to
Duliajan Bus Stand. Thereafter his wife went to her matrimonial home and
there she committed suicide. This witness saw the dead body of wife of
accused in her house.
During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he did not state
before police exactly what he has stated in the Court. After marriage he never
met the deceased.
(7) PW 3, Sri Surajit Sonowal, has stated that deceased was his
sister. Accused person used to torture the deceased physically and mentally
which was informed by his sister to his mother over phone. On 3rd August 2009
his sister Mili informed his mother over phone that she is at Duliajan bus stand
and told her mother to send someone to bring her from the bus stand to her
house. He came and brought his sister Mili to home. The incident took place
within one month from the time of taking hr back from bus stand. She
committed suicide by hanging herself with the ceiling fan of her bedroom His
mother lodged ejahar in the police station.
During cross-examination, this witness has stated that Mili did not tell
him directly anything. During stay of Mili at their house she has usual talked
with them. Police did not ask him in detail regarding incident. He did not inform
his neighbors about the occurrence.
(8) P.W. 4, Sri Pranab Sonowal has deposed that Deceased Mili
was his sister. After marriage of his sister Mili the accused took her to the place
of his working at Tezpur and subjected her mental and physical torture. On
3.8.2009 the accused left his sister in the bus stand. She was brought to their
house by his elder brother where she committed suicide.
During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that on 10.09.2009
he lodged an ejahar before Duliajan Police Station. Ext. A1 is the said ejahar The
ejahar was lodged on the same day of incident. His mother also lodged another
ejahar on 13.9.2009 about the incident. He also stated that his assumption
regarding leaving of the deceased at the bus stand amounts to cruelty. He also
stated that he has not reported to any one. His sister spent 45 days in their
5
house after her coming from Duliajan Bus stand. He do not know that during
stay of his sister at his house the accused talked her over phone.
(9) P.W.5 Sri Ghana Kanta Sonowal, has stated that accused is his
brother-in-law . Munmi Sonowal @ Mili is the daughter of his father‟s brother.
On 10.9.2009 she committed suicide. His sister was married on 23.1.2009 with
the accused. They resided together at Lakhipathar. Thereafter they resided
together as husband and wife at Tezpur. His sister informed him over phone that
accused usually come to his house at late night. She also told him over phone
that accused used to assault her. His sister told her mother that the accused
used to demand dowry from her. His sister came to the house of her mother.
She told that the accused left her in the Duliajan bus stand wherefrom she
telephoned to her mother and accordingly his brother brought her to the house
from Duliajan Bus stand. They used to telephoned to accused but he never
received call. His sister informed him that accused demanded RS. 2 lacs. On
10.09.09 at about 2/3 pm while he was in his house his cousin Sri Bhaskar
Sonowal informed him that Mili committed suicide. He went to the place of
occurrence. Police came to the place of occurrence.
During cross-examination, this witness has stated that Mili stayed in her
parental house for about 1 ½ months after coming from the house of the
accused. His house is situated at a distance of 200 mtres from the parental
house of Mili. He denied the suggestion that he has not told before police that
Mili told him that accused assaulted her. He cannot remember whether he
stated before police that one boy Bhaskar Sonowal has informed him regarding
the suicide committed by Mili. He also denied that he has not stated before
police that accused demanded Rs. 2 lac from his sister. He also denied that he
has deposed falsely implicating the accused. He also denied that he deposed in
favour of his aunt.
(10) P.W.6 Smti. Purnima Sonowal, has deposed that accused is his
brother-in-law. Munmi Sonowal @ Milli was his cousin. She committed suicide.
She got married with the accused on 23.1.2009. After marriage they started
living first at the house of accused at Digboi Laila Lowpatty where they stayed
6
for about 2 months. Thereafter she was taken to Tezpur, Biswanath Chariali The
accused was working in Zinzira Tea Estate. On 3.8.09 the accused person
brought his sister to Duliajan and left her in Duliajan Bus stand. His sister
telephoned to her aunt from Duliajan Bus Stand and took her to home and also
informed that the accused person left her in Duliajan bus Stand. From there
the elder brother of this witness Sri Surajit Sonowal brought her to home. His
sister reported that she was subjected to torture. Even she was not provided
food. The accused person demanded RS. 2 lac. She reported this witness that
she would not go to house of accused as she apprehends that her life is at
stack and she also suspected that the accused had extra marital affair with
other woman. This witness talked sitting with her. At that moment her sister
received a phone from accused. When this witness asked she told that accused
telephoned to her. But she did not tell this witness about conversation but she
was weeping. Her sister asked this witness to go to home. Accordingly this
witness went to his home. Accused made call to her at about 9.30/10 am. Her
aunt Smti. Debojani Sonowal came from her duty from OIL at 3.30 / 4 pm. She
called this witness and told that something had happened to Mili. This witness
immediately went to her house and saw Mili hanging with the ceiling fan. Village
people and police came to the place of occurrence. Police took the dead body
for post mortem examination. Her statement was recorded by police.
During cross-examination this witness has deposed that she did not
report before police that her sister reported her that accused person has extra
marital affair with other woman. She denied the suggestion that the accused
never tortured her sister. She also denied that accused never demanded dowry
from her sister.
(11) P.W. 7, Sri Pramod Hazarika, has deposed that he know both
the accused and the deceased Munmi. She died in the year 2009. She
committed suicide. Munmi Sonowal was socially married with the accused in the
month f January 2009. AFtr marriage she was taken to the house of accused at
Laupati Digboi. But as the accused worked in a tea garden and kept her in the
garden. After about 6 month, he came to know that Mili was left in bus station
from where she was brought to her parents house by her elder brother. She
7
stayed some days in the home. Her mother reported that she was subjected to
cruelty and even some time she was kept starved. One day Munmi‟s mother
called this witness and other persons of the locality to discuss regarding demand
of RS. 2 lac by the accused. Being Gaon Burah, this witness suggested to
report the matter to the police station. Mother of Munmi told this witness to
discuss wit the family members of the accused as this is a family matter. About
7 days after discussion , Munmi committed suicide on 10.09.2009. After getting
information this witness went to see Munmi and found her hanging with the
ceiling fan about 1/1.30 pm.
During cross-examination this witness stated that There was a meeting
regarding demand of dowry by the accused from Munmi. Police did not ask him
regarding the meeting prior to 7 days of the incident that is why , he did not
state before police. This witness further deposed that he has no personal
knowledge about the occurrence. This witness heard about the fact from the
mother of the deceased.
(12) P.W. 8, Sri Dulal Ch. Hazarika, has deposed that he know the
informant and deceased Munmi Sonowal. Deceased was married to the accused
person in the year 2009 and in the same year she died. After marriage the
deceased was living with the accused person at first at Lakhipathar and after
that they lived at Tezpur. After some month of the marriage of the deceased and
the accuse person he came to know that the accused left the deceased at
Duliajan bus stand. About 20 to 15 days before the incident mother of the
deceased told this witness that there is dispute between the accused and the
deceased and the accused physically tortured the deceased during her stay
with the accused person. The mother of the deceased told this witness and the
Gaon Burah of their village and other two persons. She told about the torture.
Gaon Burah Pramod Hazarika and the brother of Gaon Burah, Uma Kanta
Hazarika visited the house of the accused for compromise. The mother of the
deceased told them to settle the dispute on 25th August 2009. After two hours of
the incident he came to know about the hanging of the deceased and after that
incident the mother of the deceased lodged an ejahar against the accused
person.
8
During cross-examination, this witness deposed that his house is situated
at a distance of about 1/2 KM way from the place of occurrence. He also stated
that he do not know about the occurrence. He came to know about the incident
from the mother of the deceased. He had no personal knowledge if the
deceased was left in the Duliajan Bus Stand by the accused.
(13) P.W. 9 Dr. Konbapu Chowdhury stated that On 10.09.2009 he was
Demonstrator in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Assam Medical College &
Hospital, Dibrugarh, and on that day he has conducted post mortem
examination over the dead body of Mili Sonowal @ Munmi Sonowal age 24
years female W/O. Sri Ratan Sonowal of Gijira Tea Estate, P.S. Tezpur, Dist.
Sonitpur, Assam with reference to Duliajan P.S. U.D. Case No. 35/2009 dated
10.9.2009. The dead body was identified by Constable No. 52 Tribedi Baruah and
Sri Kanak Sonowal and found the following:
External appearance :- A female dead body of average build
brown complexion wearing nighty , bran and panty. Eyes and mouth closed.
Rigor mortis present all over the body. Blood stain present on both nostril. Anus
and Vulva healthy.
External injury not detected. Mark of ligature on neck – a Non
continuous / ligature mark present on upper part of neck. Mark is grooved and
margins abraded. Knot of the ligature present over left angle of mandible. On
dissection underlying soft tissues are dry and glistening.
Cranium and Spinal Canal :
Scalp, Skull and Vertebrae – healthy. Membrane and brain congested. Thorax –
Walls and ribs healthy. Pleurae, Larynx and Trachea healthy. Right and left lung
congested. Pericardium , Heart and Vessels healthy.
Abdomen – Wall healthy. Peritoneum, mouth , pharynx and
esophagus healthy. Stomach healthy contains partly digested food matters.
Small Intestine – healthy and contains liquid food matter. Large
Intestine healthy and contains gases and fecal matters.
Liver , Spleen and Kidney – congested. Bladder healthy. Organs of
Generation healthy. Uterus – Gravid , contain a single us 40 cm long.
OPINION
9
Death was due to asphyxia resulting from ante mortem hanging which
was suicidal in nature. Approx time since death 12 to 24 hours.
Ext. 3 is the post mortem report and Ext. 3(1) is my signature. Ext. 3(2)
is the signature of S.I. Borbhuyan, Professor and Head Department of Forensic
Medicine, Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh who concurred with my
opinion.
At the time of post mortem examination papers are placed before him.
Ext. 4 is the dead body challlan and Ext. 4(1) is his signature. Ext. 5 is inquest
and Ext. 5(1) and 5(2) and 5(3) are his signatures.
During cross-examination, this witness has deposed that nature
of death was suicidal in nature.
(14 ) ` P.W. 10, Sri Gulap Bailung stated that On 10.09.2009, he was
working as ASI at Duliajan P.S. One Pranab Sonowal lodged, an ejahar, that on
10.09.2009, Smti. Mili Sonowal, committed suicide at her parent‟s house. After
receiving the ejahar, then O/C, Duliajan P.S. Rajib Kr. Saikia, registered a UD
case as Duliajan P.S. UD Case NO. 35/09 and directed me to take up the
investigation of this case.
After direction of O/C, Duliajan P.S. at 7.45 pm he went to the
informant‟s house and visited the place of occurrence. He informed Executive
Magistrate for inquest but it was already night time, therefore, the Executive
Magistrate informed me that he would do the inquest on next day.
On 11.09.2009, inquest was done in presence of Executive Magistrate.
Ext. 5 is the Inquest. On 11.09.2009, he sent the dead body for post mortem.
After registering the UD case he recorded the statement of witnesses on
11.9.2009.
On 13.9.2009, he was working as ASI at Duliajan P.S. On that day one
Debojani Sonowal of Kachari Pathar Gaon, under P.S. Duliajan lodged a written
ejahar that her daughter Munmi Sonowal, was married with Ratan Sonowal on
23.1.2009 and after marriage, she was assaulted by her husband and her
husband demanded money from her which was told by her daughter Munmi in
front of her.
10
In the ejahar it was also mentioned that they gave sufficient Stridhan as
per their capacity. But again Munmi‟s husband demanded Rupees two lacs for
which Munmi was tortured physically and mentally by her husband. On 3.8.09,
she returned to informant‟s house for the atrocities of her husband and we
requested many times to return back our daughter to his house but he refused.
The accused Ratan also had illicit relationship with other girl. For this
atrocities on 10.09. 2009, when no was present at informant‟s house, Munmi
committee suicide by hanging herself. After receiving the ejahar then O/C Rajib
Kr. Saikia registered a case as case No. Duliajan P.S. 190/09 under section 306
IPC and entrusted me to investigate the case. Ext. 1 is the ejahar and Ext. 1(2)
is the signature of Rajib Kr. Saikia, O/C, Duliajan P.S. and he know his signature.
Ext. 6 is the ejahar. He was entrusted to take pre step of this case. Ext.
4 is the First Information Report. Ext. 6(1) is the signature of Rajib Kr. Saikia
and this witness know his signature. Ext. 6(2) is the signature of the informant.
This PW recorded the statement of informant in the case. On 13.098.2009, at 10
am he went to the place of occurrence and drew a sketch map of the PO. Ext. 7
is the Sketch Map and Ext. 7(1) is my signature.
He again recorded the statement of witnesses. In the place of
occurrence. He recorded the statement of five witnesses at the place of
occurrence and I found sufficient material against the accused person that the
accused demanded money from the deceased parent‟s and the accused left
deceased at the bus stand of Duliajan P.S. alone and he returned back to his
house and he refused to accept the deceased.
He sent the informant before Magistrate, to record her statement U/s
164 Cr.P.C. Ext. 2 is the statement of informant U/s 164 Cr.P.C. On 29.10.2009
he combined both the UD case and the case No. 190/09 U/s. 306 IPC. He
combined both cases after collecting the PM report of deceased. He already
arrested the accused person on 13.10.2009 from his residence from Lakhipathar
and he sent him to Judicial custody on 14.09.2009. After completing the
investigation, he gave Jimma of the C/D to O/C, Rajib Kr. Saikia to Duliajan P.S.
and he submitted the C/S on 23.12.2009 against the accused person U/s 306
IPC. Ext. 8 is the charge sheet and Ext. 8(1) is the signature of O/C Rajib Kr
Saikia, which this PW know.
11
During cross-examination this witness has deposed that he received the
First Information Report on 10.9.2009 and second on 13.9.2009. First FIR was
lodged by one Pramod Sonowal and second FIR dated 13.9.09 was lodged by
Smti. Debojoni Sonowal. Basing upon the Second FIR 13.9.09 , the O/C Duliajan
P.S. has submitted the C/S.
He started the investigation after receiving the FIR dated 13.9.20009.
O/C did not mention in the C/S about the development in the UD case. On the
basis of FIR 10.9.09 no case has been made out U/s 306, IPC hence we
investigated the case on the FIR dated 13.9.09. IN U.D. case NO. 35/09, Dr.
K.B. Chowdhury, opined that the death was due to suicide. At the time of
investigation this PW was ASI. He investigated the case as an ASI.
This witness however, denied the suggestion that being ASI, he is not
entitled to investigate the case. The complainant did not mention the cause of
delay in filing FIR dated 13.9.09. He has examined the writer of both the FIR.
P.W. 1, complainant has not stated before this witness that deceased was
carrying pregnancy of 9 months at the time of her death. He also denied that
FIR dated 10.9.09 did not made out any case hence, he asked the complainant
to lodge another FIR, dated 13.9.09 and on the basis of the said FIR,
investigation was done and submitted the charge sheet. This PW also denied
that he has not investigated the case properly as per law.
(15) After completion of the prosecution witness the accused person is
examined and his statement is recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused person
denied all the allegations leveled against him and he claimed that he is innocent.
However, the accused person was not acquitted U/s 232 Cr.P.C. and was
asked to enter upon his defence to which, he declined to adduce any evidence
in his favour. To prove the charge against the accused person the prosecution
examined as many as 10 witnesses including the Medical and Investigating
Officer. P.W. 9 is the Doctor who deposed that he conducted post mortem on the
dead body of Mili Sonowal @ Munmi Sonowal. On examination on the body of
the deceased the doctor has opined that the cause of the death was due to
asphyxia resulting from ante mortem hanging which was suicidal in nature.
12
Approx time since death 12 to 24 hours. From the perusal of the post
mortem report along with deposition of P.W. 9 this Court is of the opinion that
death was due to asphyxia and it was homicidal in nature. Now, the question is
whether the accused person compelled / abated the deceased to commit
suicide. To prove this let us explore the evidence of other witnesses.
PW 4 is the brother, who filed First Information Report for the first time
hereinafter called First FIR. He was examined in the Court. He deposed that
deceased Mili was his sister. She died on 10.9.09 at their residence. After her
marriage his sister was taken to Tezpur and subjected her mental and physical
torture. On 3.8.09, the accused left his sister in the bus stand. During cross-
examination he deposed that he lodged ejahar and his mother also has lodged
another ejahar on 13.9.09. He admits that his sister spent 45 days in their
house after coming from Duliajan Bus stand. He further deposed that he did
not know that during the stay of her sister at their house the accused talked
to her over telephone.
P.W. 1 , is the mother of the deceased. she filed second ejahar. She
deposed in the Court that marriage between the accused and her daughter was
held on 23.1.2009. Soon after the marriage the accused started to torture her
daughter both physically and mentally. On 3.8.09 the accused left her daughter
at Duliajan Bus stand which is about 7 KM away from their home. This witness
further deposed that on being asked to her daughter, her daughter told her
that her husband desires to marry another woman and for that reason he left
her at bus stand. This witness further stated that her daughter told her that the
accused used to torture her , did not provide her proper maintenance, food etc.
This witness also deposed that her daughter told her that the accused person
had some illicit relationship with another woman. This witness further deposed
that due to torture her daughter committed suicide on 10.9.2009 at her house
by hanging herself from a ceiling fan. From the deposition of this witness it
transpires that the accused tortured the deceased. The reason of his torture as
deposed by this witness is illicit relationship with another woman. But no
where in his deposition this witness stated that who is the another woman.
From the deposition of this witness it also reveals that marriage was held on
23.1.2009 and the deceased committed suicide on 10.9.2009 i.e., within 8
13
months after the marriage. But from the deposition of this witness nowhere it is
mentioned that the accused demanded any dowry from the deceased.
P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased, PW 3 is also the brother of the
deceased. PW 2 heard from his mother that the accused inflicted cruelty to his
sister and after nine month of his marriage the accused left his sister at Duliajan
Bus Stand.
P.W. 3 also deposed on the same tune. But during his cross PW 3
admitted that his sister Mili did not tell him anything regarding the cruelty. He
also admitted that Sri Ranjit Sonowal and Pramod Hazarika are residing adjacent
to their house. But he did not inform any of the neighbours regarding the
incident.
P.W. 5 is another brother. He deposed that his sister informed him over
telephone that the accused usually came to his house at late night. The
accused used to assault her, the accused used to demand dowry from her. The
accused left his sister at Duliajan Bus Stand from where his sister telephoned to
his mother and thereafter his sister was brought from Dulajan to Bus Stand.
This witness further deposed that his sister informed him that the accused
demanded Rs. 2 lac about which he consulted with the Local Gaon Burah and
the villagers who decided not to give dowry to the accused. From the
deposition of this witness it is found that the accused demanded Rs. 2 lacs from
her sister. But PW 1 that is, his mother did not depose in the Court that the
accused demanded Rs. 2 lac frm her daughter. Moreover, this witness did not
depose that the accused person had illicit relationship with any other woman.
From the deposition of P.W. 1 and the PW 5, though it is established that the
accused left his wife at Duliajan Bus Stand, it does not establish the cruelty to
the extent to end her life.
PW 6 is the sister. She is the cousin of the victim. She deposed that her
sister reported her that the accused subjected her to torture. She was not
provided food etc. The accused demanded Rs. 2 lac. This witness further
deposed that her sister used to talk with the accused and the accused also talk
with her sister over telephone. Her sister reported her that she would not go to
the house of the accused as she apprehends that her life is at danger as she
suspected that accused had extra marital affair with other woman. On
14
10.09.2009 prior to the day of Janamastomi, Mili came to her house and she was
talking sitting with her. At that moment her sister received a phone call from
the accused. On being asked she told that the accused telephoned to her but
she did not tell her about the conversation except she was weeping. The
accused made phone call to her at about 9.30/10 am. Her aunt i.e, PW 1 called
her and told her that something had happened to Mili. She immediately went to
the house of Mili and saw Mili was hanging herself in a ceiling fan. During
cross-examination , this witness admitted that her sister stayed in the house of
her parents from 3.8.09 to 10.09.2009. From perusal of the deposition of this
witness it is found that this witness came to know from the deceased Mili that
the accused had made phone call and the phone call was made around 9.30/10
am and the deceased committed suicide on 3.30/4 pm. From the deposition of
this witness, it is clear that the deceased committed suicide in the house of her
parents and not in the house of the accused.
From the deposition of this witness though, it reveals that on the day of
incident the deceased received a phone call from the accused but the
prosecution did not brought on record from this witness the phone number of
the accused as well as the deceased. Moreover, it is also not brought on the
record whether the accused on the relevant time, i.e. about 9.30/10 am made
any phone call to the deceased or not. Therefore, from the evidence of this
witness it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had abated /
assaulted the deceased to commit suicide.
P.W. 7 is the Gaon Burah and P.W. 8 is the neighbor whereas P.W. 10 is
the Investigation Officer. All these witness described the post incident and from
their evidence did not prove the charge of abetting by the accused.
(16) It has been rieterated in catena of judgment that any over reaction on the
part of the deceased can not be a ground for abatement . Different person react
differenty in a same set of action. But all that action can not be treated as
abated by the accused. Let ius discuss some Judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme
Court.
15
(17) In State of Kerala and Ors Vs. S.Unnikrishnan Nair and Ors AIR
2015 SC 3351 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has nice explain the concept of
abetment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below for ready reference.
„10. To appreciate the rivalised submissions in the obtaining factual matrix,
it is necessary to understand the concept of abatement as enshrined
in Section 107 IPC. The said provision reads as follows:-
„107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who – First – 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 commission
of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that
act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the
doing of that act.”
11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P[4].
by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect:-
“Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of
abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person,
abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do
that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other persons in any
conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act
or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential
to complete abetment as a crime. The word “instigate” literally means
to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any
thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional
aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109
16
provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of
abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such
abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment
provided for the original offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means the
specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of
which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with
the proved offence.”
12. In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal[5]. dealing with
expression of abetment the Court observed:- “The expression “abetment”
has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted
above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person
instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do
anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107
IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant
to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with
the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the
respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case
where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According
to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for
under Section 107 IPC.”
(18) In Ghusabhai Raisangbhai Chorasiya and Ors. Vs. State of
Gujarat AIR 2015 SC 2670 Hon‟ble Supreme Court has nice explained the
concept of cruelty and abetment causing death. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced below for ready reference.
“15. At this juncture, it is appropriate to mention that the Holi festival in
the said year fell on 6.3.2004 and the occurrence took place on March 4,
2004. It is also noticeable that the sister of the deceased had volunteered
to speak about the conversation of divorce. The document shows that
there was a divorce as per the customs. There is material on record to
show that she was staying on the terrace. In this factual backdrop what
is to be seen is whether there has been a cruelty which compelled her to
17
commit suicide. In this regard, we may fruitfully refer to Section 498A of
the IPC, which reads as under: "498A. Husband or relative of husband of
a woman subjecting her to cruelty.-Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-For the purpose of
this section, "cruelty" means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with
a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
16. This Court in Girdhar Shankar Tawade V. State of Maharashtra[1].,
examining the scope of 498A, has observed thus: "The basic purport of
the statutory provision is to avoid "cruelty" which stands defined by
attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed
hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to
ascribe a meaning to the word "cruelty" as is expressed by the
legislatures: whereas Explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz.
(i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or
(iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus
involving a physical torture or atrocity, in Explanation (b) there is absence
of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive
harassment which obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally
heinous to match the physical injury: whereas one is patent, the other
one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute
since the same would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in terms
of Section 498-A."
17. In Gurnaib Singh V. State of Punjab[2]., while analyzing the aforesaid
provision, it has been opined that Clause (a) of the Explanation
to Section 498A IPC defines cruelty to mean "any willful conduct which
is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide".
18
Clause (b) of the Explanation pertains to unlawful demand and Clause (a)
can take in its ambit mental cruelty.
18. From the aforesaid authorities it is quite clear that the first limb
of Section 498A, which refers to cruelty, has nothing to do with demand
of dowry. In the present case, in fact, there is no demand of dowry. If
the evidence is appropriately appreciated, the deceased was pained and
disturbed as the husband was having an illicit affair with the appellant
no.4. Whether such a situation would amount to cruelty under the first
limb of Section 498A IPC is to be seen. A two-Judge Bench of this Court
in Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal V. State of Gujarat[3]., while dealing with
extra marital relationship, has held thus: "Marital relationship means the
legally protected marital interest of one spouse to another which include
marital obligation to another like companionship, living under the same
roof, sexual relation and the exclusive enjoyment of them, to have
children, their upbringing, services in the home, support, affection, love,
liking and so on. Extramarital relationship as such is not defined in the
Penal Code. Though, according to the prosecution in this case, it was that
relationship which ultimately led to mental harassment and cruelty within
the Explanation to Section 498-A and that A-1 had abetted the wife to
commit suicide." xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx "We are of the view that the mere
fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during
the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital
obligations, as such would not amount to "cruelty", but it must be of such
a nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide to fall within
the Explanation to Section 498-A IPC. Harassment, of course, need not
be in the form of physical assault and even mental harassment also
would come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. Mental cruelty, of
course, varies from person to person, depending upon the intensity and
the degree of endurance, some may meet with courage and some others
suffer in silence, to some it may be unbearable and a weak person may
think of ending one's life. We, on facts, found that the alleged
extramarital relationship was not of such a nature as to drive the wife to
commit suicide or that A-1 had ever intended or acted in such a manner
19
which under normal circumstances, would drive the wife to commit
suicide." The Court further proceeded to state: "Section 306 refers to
abetment of suicide. It says that if any person commits suicide, whoever
abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be
liable to fine. The action for committing suicide is also on account of
mental disturbance caused by mental and physical cruelty. To constitute
an offence under Section 306, the prosecution has to establish that a
person has committed suicide and the suicide was abetted by the
accused. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted the commission
of suicide. But for the alleged extramarital relationship, which if proved,
could be illegal and immoral, nothing has been brought out by the
prosecution to show that the accused had provoked, incited or induced
the wife to commit suicide."
19. After holding as aforesaid, the Court found on facts and especially
referring to suicide note that one can infer that the deceased was so
possessive of her husband, and was always under an emotional stress
that she might lose her husband and that apart she had exonerated the
husband and accordingly it would not come within the scope and ambit
of Section 306 IPC.”
(19) From perusal of the entire evidence on record, the allegations against
the accused person was in a nutshell is that the accused person had illicit
relationship with another woman. The accused person did not provide food to
the deceased, the accused person demanded Rs. 2 lacs and the immediate
cause is that the accused person left the deceased in Duliajan Bus Stand. The
defence counsel argued that the accused is service holder and there is no
reason to demand Rs. 2 lac from the deceased. In fact her mother who was
close to the deceased has not deposed demanding of money from the deceased.
So far other allegations regarding the illicit relationship with another
woman is concerned, no specific proof is adduced, even with whom the accused
had illicit relationship not brought on record from the mouth of any of the
witnesses. So far the cruelty regarding not giving food not properly is also not
20
established as because the accused is the service holder and he is self
sufficient person. So far leaving of the deceased at Duliajan Bus Stand the
accused denied the allegation.
Even if it is taken that the accused left his wife at Duliajan Bus Stand
which is 7 KM away from the house of the deceased that does not establish the
cruelty to the extent which affect his life and limb . All the allegations brought
against the accused person even if it is taken to be true that does not establish
the cruelty to the extent which compelled her to take her life and because the
deceased left the house of her husband and stayed in the house of her parents.
She stayed in the house of her parent for about 1 ½ months. She could have
sought divorce or judicial separation from her husband. She could have avoided
any contact to her husband. The deceased had many alternatives to avoid the
accused. From perusal of the entire evidence on record no such incriminating
material is found which shows that the accused person compelled/abated his
wife to commit suicide. Alternately, the deceased had no option to except to
commit suicide. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge U/s
306 against the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
(20) From perusal of the entire evidence on record and the facts and
circumstances , this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to
establish the charge U/s 306 IPC against the accused Ratan Sonowal. Hence,
the accused is not held guilty. The accused is acquitted from the charge .Set
him at liberty.
His bail bond with surety is extended to next six months.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this the 16th day of January ,
2016.
Dictated and corrected by me, ( A.B. Siddique ), Addl. Sessions Judge, Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh. Dibrugarh.
21
APPENDIX
Prosecution witnesses;
P.W. 1 – Smti. Debajani Sonowal.
P.W. 2 – Sri Luhit Bora.
P.W. 3 – Sri Surajit Sonowal.
P.W. 4 – Sri Pranab Sonowal.
P.W. 5 – Sri Ghana Kanta Sonowal.
P.W. 6 – Smti. Purnima Sonowal.
P.W. 7 – Sri Pramod Hazarika.
P.W. 8 – Sri Dulal Ch. Hazarika.
P.W. 9 – Dr. Konbapu Chowdhury.
P.W. 10 – Sri Gulap Bailung.
Exhibits :
Ext. 1 – Ejahar.
Ext. 2 – Statement of witness U/s 164 CrP.C.
Ext. 3 – Post mortem report.
Ext. 4 – Dead body challan.
Ext. 7 – Sketch Map.
Ext 8 – Charge sheet.
Charge sheet.
Medico Legal report of the victim.
(A.B.Siddique) Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.