GURUCHARAN KUMAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 60

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE, B.P. SINGH

Judgment text

) ( GURUCHARAN KUMAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN JANUARY 8, 2003 [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B. P. SINGH, JJ. ] Penal Code, /86~ections 304B and 306-Dowry death and abetment ofsuicide-Both trial court and High Court convicting husband and in-laws of deceased-Appeal by in-laws and not by husband since he has already undergone the entire sentence-Held: oral evidence creating impression that accused harassing deceased for dowry, however, documentary evidence not substantiating such a/legations, thus prosecution/ailedto prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-Hence in-laws to be acquitted-Since case of husband same as case ofin-laws, husband also to be acquitted-Benefit to non-appealing accused-Practice and Procedure. According to the prosecution, a lady committed suicide by hanging after two and a half months of her marriage on account of demand of a car towards dowry. At that time, she was residing with her husband and in-laws.

After the incident girl's parents wer~ informed and they reached the place of occurrence. Father of the deceased lodged an FIR. Investigations were carried out. Thereafter husband of the deceased and her in - laws were tried for offence under Sections 3048 and 306 IPC. Trial Court convicted and sentenced them for the offence committed. High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal by the in-laws. Appellants contended that deceased may have felt the absence of a car as she was accustomed to moving about on her own in her father's car. Respondent contended that the suicide note only indicated that deceased was committing suicide voluntarily and it did not amount to the exoneration of accused. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. J. Letters written by the mother of deceased to her GURUCHARAN KUMAR v.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN 61 daughter and her son-in-law do not support the case of the prosecution · that deceased was being subjected to torture and harassment or was being constantly taunted for not bringing a car in dowry. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, these letters were written during the period when she was being subjected to cruelty. On the contrary, it appears from these letters that she was well looked after in her matrimonial home and that all members showered on her love and affection, so much so that she was very keen to get her brother-in-law married to a good girl of fair complexion and there was no other demand. The only indication, if at all, is about her finding it difficult to adjust in the new surroundings for which she found herself guilty for entertaining such feelings. (69-E-H; 70-AJ 1. 2.

In the suicide note there is no statement to the effect that deceased was committing suicide because she had been harassed or tortured by her husband or her in-laws or was compelled to end her life because she was being constantly taunted for having not got a car in dowry which can be used against the accused. In fact, that note says that no one was responsible for what she was doing, and what she was doing was entirely of her own will. )70-C, DJ 1. 3. The evidence on record does not suggest that deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by her father and mother-in-law for or in connection with any demand. for dowry. Rather it supports the case of defence that accused showered love and affection on deceased. She may have committed suicide, as she was unable to adjust herself in the changed surroundings of her matrimonial home being a highly emotional person.

Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and appellants are entitled to acquittal. Hence the order ofHigh Court as well as trial court is set aside and appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. (71-F-G; 72-Al 2. Even in a case where one of the accused has not preferred an appeal, or even if his SLP is dismissed, in case relief is granted to the remaining accused and the case of the accused, who has either not appealed or whose SLP has been dismissed, stands on the same footing, he should not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other accused. In the instant case, husband of deceased, has not preferred an appeal before this Court, on account of the fact that he has already served out the sentence imposed against him. However, though his sufferings cannot be obliterated, certainly the stigma attached to him on account of his conviction for a heinous offence under Section 304 B IPC can be obliterated.

Since the case of husband of deceased is not distinguishable from the case of appellants and appellants have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them, conviction and sentence passed against the husband is set aside and is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. (72-B-E) · happy relationship. These letters which we have noticed above do not support the case of the prosecution that Geetu was being subjected to torture and harassment or was being constantly taunted for not bringing a car in dowry. On the contrary, it appears from these letters that she was loved by all members of her matrimonial family who showered affection on her. The only indication, if at all, is about her finding it difficult to adjust in the new surroundings for t- which she found herself guilty for entertaining such feelings. She has referred to the freedom that she enjoyed in her parental home but now feels suppressed because she cannot do all that she used to do in her parental home.

As we have observed earlier these letters were written during the period when, according to the prosecution, she was being subjected to cruelty and torture and a consistent demand for a car was being made. These letters, however, do not support the case of the prosecution and on the other hand are indicative ~ of the fact that she was well looked after in her matrimonial home and that all members of her matrimonial family showered on her love and affection. So much so that she was very keen to get her brother-in-law married to a (' l·' 70 SUl>REME COURT REPORTS (2003] I S. C. R. good girl of fair complexion as there was no other demand. We may now refer to the suicide note left behind by the deceased Ex. P- ~ 4. The said note reads as under:- "Sorry. I really mean it. What I am going to do is by my own will and no one else is responsible for it. Geetu".

ln the said note also there is no statement to the effect that she was committing suicide because she had been harassed or tortured by her husband or her in-laws or that she was compelled to end her life because she was being constantly taunted for having not got a car in dowry. In fact the note says that no one was responsible for what she was doing, and that what she was doing was entirely of her own will. It was sought to be argued before us by counsel for the State that the said suicide note only indicates that she was committing suicide voluntarily, and did not amount to the exoneration of the accused. That may be one way of reading the suicide note, but it is equally possible to read the suicide note to mean that she was entirely. responsible for what she was doing and no one else was to blame.

The suicide note does not contain any statement which can be used against the accused, as there is nothing in the suicide note which may even remotely suggest that she was ending her life because of the mal-treatment meted out to her by the members of her matrimonial family. Much was sought to be made by the counsel for the State of Ex. P-33, the parcel allegedly sent by PW-4 to her daughter on the 13th July, 1990. _,_ That was supposed to be a gift parcel sent to Parvin Kumar, husband of the deceased, whose birthday fell on 19th July, 1990. The parcel contained a letter in which there is mention of a car being repaired for being sent to the r deceased. Nothing much turns on this. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that Geetu may have felt the absence ofa car as she was accustomed to moving about on her own in her father's car. The accused could not afford a car . and therefore could not provide her with a car.

In these circumstances if the parents of the deceased thought of sending her an old car after repairs, it does not necessarily follow that car was being sent in response to any demand by the husband or in-laws of the deceased. Unfortunately, the High Court has not even referred to. the aforesaid letters and was content to reach its conclusion on the basis of the oral evidence on record. We are satisfied after having read the letters placed before us that the case projected by the prosecution at the trial about the demand of a car cannot be accepted. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased was being maltreated or tortured, except that she was constantly being taunted for not bringing a car in dowry. Even the story about PW-I having asked PW-5 to get a demand draft prepared for the purchase of a car appears to be .. an afterthought because PW-5 admitted that he neither got a demand draft made nor was he paid any amount by the father of the deceased for the purpose.

Moreover, no one informed the deceased that demand draft was about to be sent for the purchase of a car. In normal circumstances one would have expected that the deceased would have been informed of the fact that a ~ demand draft was being sent for the purchase of a car, particularly when it is the case of the prosecution that Geetu was under a terrible strain and depression on account of her being consistently taunted for not bringing a car in dowry. Moreover, the informant has not mentioned about the decision to send a demand draft for purchase ofa car either in the F. l. R or in his two subsequent statements before the police. Moreover, this story is not consistent with the version given out in the letter Ex. 33 of 13. 7. 90 wherein it was stated that a car was being repaired for being sent to Geetu.

The letters which we have noticed are substantially contemporaneous, written at a time when it is alleged she was being subjected to cruelty at the hands ofher husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law. Rather than supporting the case of the prosecution, these letters support the case of the defence that ~ so far as they were concerned they had showered love and affection on Geetu and not subjected her to cruelty or harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. We are ofthe view that Geetu may have committed suicide, as she was unable to adjust herself in the changed surroundings of her matrimonial home being a highly emotional person. The evidence on record does not suggest that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by 1 her father and mother-in-law for or in connection with any demand for dowry. --,. ,.

We are, therefore, ofthe considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the appellants are entitled to acquittal. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and 72 SUPREME COURT ltEPORTS (2003) I S. C. R. order of the High Coott as well as that of the trial court and acquit the appellants of the Chllrges levelled against them. They are on bail. Their bail bonds stal'ld discharged. · As noticed earlier accused Parvin Kumar, husband of the deceased, Geetu has not preferred an appeal before this Court, on account of the fact that he has already served out the sentence imposed against him. However, though we cannot obliterate the sufferings of Parvin Kumar, we can certainly obliterate the stigma that attaches to him on account of his conviction for a heinous offence tihder Section 304 B of the l. P. C.

This Court has laid down judicious principle that even in a case where one of the accused has not preferred an appeal, or even if his Special Leave Petition is dismissed, in case relief is granted to the remaining accused and the case of the accused, who has either not appealed or whose Special Leave Petition has been dismissed, stands on the same footing, he should. not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other accused. This has been held in Harbans Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. , [1982] 2 SCC IOI, Raja Ra,m & Ors. v. State of MP. , [1994] 2 SCC 568, Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State ofA. P. , [1999) 7 SCC 69 and Akhil Ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed v. State of Maharashtra, JT (2002) 2 SC 158. In the instant case we find that the case of Parvin Kumar, who has not tiled an appeal, is not distinguishable from the case of the appellants.

Since we have acquitted the appellants of the charges levelled against them, we also set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the said Parvin · Kumar and acquit him of the charges levelled against him. This appeal is accordingly allowed. N. J. Appeal allowed.