9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Framing of charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. Application of Section 113A of the Evidence Act. 3. Role of individual petitioners in the alleged abetment to suicide. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Framing of Charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC: The court addressed whether the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC should be framed against the petitioners. The petitioners were accused of abetting the suicide of Promila, who died by consuming potassium cyanide. The court referred to State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977CriLJ1606), which states that a strong suspicion can lead to the presumption of guilt at the initial stage, warranting the framing of charges. 2. Application of Section 113A of the Evidence Act: Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which presumes abetment of suicide by a married woman if she commits suicide within seven years of marriage and was subjected to cruelty, was pivotal. The court noted that the first condition of the marriage being within seven years was satisfied. The second condition required evidence of cruelty by the husband or his relatives, as defined under Section 498A IPC. 3. Role of Individual Petitioners in the Alleged Abetment to Suicide: - Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi (Criminal Revision No. 108/85): The court found insufficient evidence against Ram Kishan and his wife, Smt. Rama Devi. The prosecution's case, based on the statement of Ram Pershad Sharma, did not establish cruelty or abetment by these petitioners. Their actions were limited to sending messages and assurances, which did not amount to cruelty or abetment. The supplementary statement by Ram Pershad Sharma was deemed inadmissible as it was merely his opinion. Consequently, Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi were discharged. - Smt. Dayawati: The court observed that Dayawati's involvement in harassment and maltreatment was only before Promila was taken to her parents' home. There was no evidence of her involvement after Promila returned to her matrimonial home. The court concluded that the cruelties leading to Promila's suicide occurred after her return, thus Dayawati was discharged. - Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh, and Daulat Ram (Criminal Misc. (Main) 994/85): The court found sufficient evidence against Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh, and Daulat Ram. Statements from Ram Pershad Sharma and his brother indicated continuous harassment and maltreatment due to unmet dowry demands. A letter from Raghbir Singh to his parents-in-law corroborated these claims. Therefore, the charges against these petitioners were upheld. Conclusion: - Criminal Revision Petition No. 108 of 1985: Accepted, resulting in the discharge of Ram Kishan and Smt. Rama Devi. - Criminal Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985: Partially accepted; Naraini Devi, Sukhbir Singh, and Daulat Ram were rightly charged, while Smt. Dayawati was discharged. - The trial court was instructed to amend the formal charges accordingly. Final Disposition: Criminal Revision No. 108 of 1985 and Criminal Misc. (Main) 994 of 1985 were disposed of as per the above findings.
|
