Prosecution Must Prove Continuous Harassment And Proximate Act For Securing Conviction Of Abetment To Suicide: J&K High Court

In dismissing a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of a man accused of abetting his wife's suicide due to dowry harassment Justice Rajesh Sekhri cited Jagdishraj Khatta vs. State of Himchal Pradesh” (2019) and reiterated,

“.. incidents which had taken place between the husband and wife much before the date of suicide cannot be construed as the conduct of accused which drove the deceased wife to commit suicide”.

Background:

The case involved the death of a woman Neha who allegedly committed suicide after being subjected to dowry harassment by her husband, Raj Kumar, and his family. The prosecution's case was built on a complaint lodged by Neha's father, Hira Lal, who claimed that Neha had faced relentless dowry demands and harassment since her marriage 1½ years prior.

Neha's father reported that despite fulfilling many dowry demands, the harassment continued, ultimately leading to Neha's death. An FIR was registered under Sections 498-A and 306 RPC, and Raj Kumar was charged while his family members were exonerated under Section 169 CrPC. The trial court after a full dressed hearing acquitted Raj as a consequence of which the State filed an appeal before the High Court.

The appellant-State argued that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and that the prosecution had established the guilt of the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. The State contended that the continuous harassment and dowry demands drove Neha to commit suicide, and the trial court's judgment of acquittal was flawed.

Conversely, the respondent's counsel, Mr. Pankaj Jamwal, argued that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and found no basis for the charges of abetment to suicide or cruelty. He emphasized the lack of credible evidence directly linking Raj Kumar to the alleged harassment that led to Neha's death.

Observations by the Court:

Meticulously examined the evidence and testimonies presented during the trial Justice Sekhri highlighted that except for the parents, brother, and sister of the deceased, all independent prosecution witnesses had either turned hostile or did not support the prosecution's case on material aspects. The independent witnesses, being neighbors and acquaintances, did not testify to any dowry harassment or cruelty.

The court noted that the testimonies of Neha's family members were based on information allegedly provided by Neha herself, rendering them hearsay and inadmissible as direct evidence. Additionally, their statements contained significant contradictions and lacked specific details about the alleged dowry payments.

“What is intriguing to note is that it is allegation of the prosecution that deceased was continuously subjected to dowry harassment, due to which, she was driven to commit suicide, however, neither any report regarding consistent demands of dowry harassment nor any report regarding the demand and payment of aforesaid money was lodged by the parents or family members of the deceased during her life time”, the bench remarked.

Observing that for an abetment to suicide conviction under Section 306 RPC, there must be clear evidence of the accused's active role in instigating or aiding the suicide the court found no such evidence against Raj Kumar and recorded,

“There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent ever intended or actively participated to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased, therefore, offence under section 306 IPC is not made out and observation of learned trial court in this regard cannot be faulted with”.

Explaining the mandate of Section 498-A RPC which prescribes that the prosecution must establish that the accused subjected the victim to cruelty likely to drive her to suicide the court found no nexus between the alleged harassment and Neha's suicide as even the independent witnesses testified that the respondent had no need for dowry, and there were no prior complaints of dowry demands during Neha's lifetime.

On the contention of application of presumption under section 114-C of the Evidence Act the court acknowledged that Neha's death occurred within seven years of her marriage, which could invoke a presumption of abetment of suicide. However, this presumption is rebuttable the court said and pointed at the lack of evidence of cruelty and the failure to prove a proximate cause of suicide, the court did not apply this presumption.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt and hence dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: State Vs Raj Kumar

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 166

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment