Ramphal v. State of Haryana and Another

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1.    Present  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  dated

16.12.2022  passed  by  the  learned  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Rewari, whereby respondent No.2 (herein) were acquitted from the charges under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC by granting them the benefit of doubt.

2.    In the present appeal, the pertinent facts for adjudication are that  the  FIR  No.144,  dated  14.05.2019,  was  lodged  against  the  accused-respondent  No.  2  namely  Tanender  S/o  Rattan  Lal,  resident  of  village Chillhar, Police Station Kasola, Rewari, under Sections 498-A and 306 of the  Indian  Penal  Code  (for  brevity  the  'IPC')  at  Police  Station  Kasola, District Rewari. The matter proceeded to trial before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, which concluded its proceedings and, vide  judgment  dated  16.12.2022,  acquitted  the  accused  (respondent  No.2 herein) of all the charges. The Court below held that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not meet the necessary standards laid-down under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC; given the insufficiency of credible evidence, there is significant doubt regarding the involvement of the accused CRA-AS-148-2023              2

in the alleged offence & hence he ought to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

3.    The appellant, aggrieved by the findings of the Court below, has  now  invoked  the  appellate  jurisdiction  of  this  Court,  seeking re-examination  of  the  findings  as  the  same  are  based  on  alleged mis-appreciation of evidence and procedural irregularities. However, it is well-settled law that the scope in appeal against acquittal is limited and does not entail a re-appreciation of evidence unless there is a manifest illegality or a serious miscarriage of justice.

4.    In brief, the case of the prosecution, as detailed in the FIR, is that on 14.05.2019, a telephonic call was received at Police Station from the Sarpanch of Village Chirahara that Anita (deceased) had committed suicide by hanging herself.  On reaching the spot, ASI Parvinder found the dead body of deceased Anita lying on the floor in a room.  Meanwhile, Dr. Basant Kumar also reached there and inspected the spot.  After arranging a private vehicle, the dead body was sent for post-mortem at CHC Bawal.  Thereafter, the  father  of  the  deceased  namely  Ramphal  (complainant)  submitted  a complaint  at  the  concerned  Police  Station  to  the  effect  that  there  was matrimonial  dispute  going  on  between  his  daughter  and  her  husband (respondent no.2 herein) on account of which she was being harassed.  It was alleged that the accused Tanender (husband of the deceased) had an illicit  relation  with  another  woman  on  account  of  which  there  had  been quarrels  between  the  accused  and  his  wife  (deceased).    It  was,  thus, suspected  that  the  accused  (husband  of  the  deceased)  had  abetted  the deceased to commit suicide. Based on these set of allegations, law was set into  motion  and  the  instant  FIR  was  registered.    During  the  course  of investigation, a suicide note was found.  Statements of the witnesses under CRA-AS-148-2023              3

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded. Inquest proceedings under Section 174  of  Cr.P.C.  were  held  and  the  dead  body  was  sent  for  post-mortem examination, which was got conducted at the Medical Board at CHC, Bawal. On  15.05.2019,  accused  (respondent  No.2  herein)  was  arrested.    After completion of investigation, the accused respondent No.2 (herein) was sent up  for  trial before the  Court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  wherein  after the committal of the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, charges were framed under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

5.    Learned counsel for the appellant has iterated that the Court below has erred in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 and the impugned order is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel has further iterated that the trial Court did not give sufficient consideration to prosecution  witnesses,  which  have  sufficiently  proved  the  guilt  of  the accused  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  According  to  the  learned  counsel,  the story put forth by the prosecution stands sufficiently proved by cogent and unimpeachable  evidence  led  on  behalf  of  the  prosecution  and  hence  the accused ought to have been convicted. It has been further argued that on the basis  of  minor  discrepancies/contradictions  in  the  testimonies  of  various prosecution witness, the trial Court has proceeded without application of the judicial mind and disbelieved the story put forth by the prosecution in toto. Learned counsel has further iterated that the Court below has erred in failing to  properly  consider  key  evidence,  including  the  testimonies  of  PW-9 (Ramphal) and PW-10 (Ombir), father and brother of the deceased, as well as  the  investigating  officer  (PW-13).    It  has  been  submitted  that  the consistent and credible testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 are aligning with the FIR and established a clear link between the action of the accused and the death of the deceased and, thus, fulfilling the element of Section 107 of CRA-AS-148-2023              4

the IPC.  Furthermore, PW-2 Dr. Rahul Yadav, testified that on 15.05.2019, a  Medical  Board,  including  himself,  has  conducted  the  post-mortem examination  of  the  deceased  at  the  request  of  the  Police  and  as  per  the opinion  of  the  Medical  Board,  the  cause  of  death  was  asphyxia  due  to hanging, which was ante-mortem in nature.  However, this crucial fact has not  been  properly  considered  by  the  Court  below  while  acquitting  the accused.  It has been further argued that the Court below ought to have considered the incriminating circumstances, however, the Court below has failed  to  properly  appreciate  them  and  acquitted  the  accused  on  flimsy grounds.    It  has  been  further  argued  that  the  prosecution  has  brought sufficient and cogent evidence on record to prove that the deceased was being maltreated by the accused prior to her death.  Learned counsel asserts that  the  Court  below  has  dealt  the  matter  in  superficial  manner  without proper consideration of the evidence.  Learned counsel has further canvassed that the Court below has wrongly acquitted the accused, despite there being sufficient evidence on record to establish his guilt and hence his acquittal is not justified in light of the evidence presented.

6.    At  the  outset,  it  is  pertinent  to  mention  herein  that  in adjudicating  an  appeal  against  an  order  of  acquittal,  the  appellate  Court operates within a narrowly circumscribed framework. It is a settled legal principle that acquittal by a trial court carries a presumption of innocence, further  strengthened  by  the  trial  court's  findings.  The  appellate  Court  is precluded from engaging in a wholesale re-appreciation or reassessment of evidence  unless  the  conclusions  drawn  by  the  trial  court  are  patently perverse,  unreasonable,  or  unsupported  by  the  record.  The  principles governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal against the  judgment  of  acquittal, have  been  laid down by  the  Hon'ble  Supreme CRA-AS-148-2023              /

-ourt  in  the  4udgment  passed  in  the  %ase  titled  as  Babu SahebagoudaRudragoudar  and  others  versus  State  of  Karnataka,  2024 INSC 320 ? 2024(2)  a! "era#d (SC) $2% held as under: "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an Appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:#

(a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

(b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;

(c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.F 3hus  the present appeal must be e@amined in %onte@t and after dra!ing guidan%e from the aforementioned prin%iples. C.    3he  allegations  in  the  present  %ase  relate  to  sub4e%ting  the /i%tim to %ruelty on a%%ount of do!ry demand as defined under Se%tion '(); A and abetment of sui%ide as defined under Se%tion <06 +P-. Se%tion '();A of the +P- reads as under:; &4$%'() "usband or re#at*ve of husband of a !o+an sub,e-t*ng her to -rue#t.)' 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 purposes of this section, "cruelty" means#

(a) any wilful 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."

3o se%ure a %on/i%tion under Se%tion '();A of the +ndian Penal -ode  #+P-$   the  prose%ution  must  establish  spe%ifi%  ingredients  of  the offen%e beyond a reasonable doubt. 3his pro/ision %riminaliGes %ruelty by the husband or his relati/es against a !oman  ne%essitating the prose%ution CRA-AS-148-2023              6

to demonstrate the following elements.  Firstly, it must be proved that the accused is either the husband of the woman or a relative of the husband. Section 498-A exclusively applies to persons in a marital relationship or those connected to the husband. Secondly, the prosecution must establish the occurrence of "cruelty," as defined under this section. The term "cruelty" includes  two  broad  categories.  The  first  involves  wilful  conduct  by  the accused that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or physical or mental health. Evidence of repeated  physical  assault,  severe  mental  harassment,  or  any  degrading treatment  that  endangers  her  well-being  must  be  presented.  The  second category includes harassment of the woman or her relatives with a view to coercing them to meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security, commonly associated with dowry demands. Clear evidence of such coercive demands and the corresponding harassment must be brought to the court's notice. The prosecution must further establish the nexus between the accused person's acts and the harm suffered by the woman, showing that the cruelty inflicted directly endangered her mental or physical health or pushed her towards suicidal tendencies. Eyewitness testimony, corroborative medical or psychological evidence, and documented proof of harassment are crucial for substantiating the charge. Lastly, the prosecution must prove the accused person's  wilful  intent  or  knowledge  of  the  consequences  of  their  acts, ensuring that the case is firmly grounded in the facts and circumstances. A comprehensive  presentation  of  evidence  satisfying  these  requirements  is indispensable to sustain a charge under Section 498A.

7.1    Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:- "306  .Abetment  of  suicide.  ?If  any  person  commits  suicide,  whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment CRA-AS-148-2023              7

of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." Thus,  the  basic  ingredients  to  constitute  an  offence  under Section 306 of the IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. Abetment of a thing is defined under Section 107 of the IPC as under:- "107.   Abetment of a thing.? 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 the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

7.2.    Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide. There should be evidence  capable  of  suggesting  that  the  accused  intended  by  such  act  to instigate  the  deceased  to  commit  suicide.  Unless  the  ingredients  of instigation/abetment  to  commit  suicide  are  satisfied,  accused  cannot  be convicted under Section 306 IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ude Singh AJAY KUMAR CRA-AS-148-2023              8

0 1thers v) State of "ar.ana, (202$) 23 SCC 302  held that in order to %on/i%t  an  a%%used  under  Se%tion  <06  of  the  +P-   the  state  of  mind  to %ommit a parti%ular %rime must be /isible !ith regard to determining the %ulpability. +t !as obser/ed as under:; "16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four#corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self#esteem and self#respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of 2024.12.11 10:07 abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human CRA-AS-148-2023              2

behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased." C.<.    3hus  it is to be borne in mind that in %ases of alleged abetment of sui%ide  there must be proof of dire%t or indire%t a%ts of in%itement to the %ommission of sui%ide. 7erely on the allegation of harassment !ithout their being any positi/e a%tion pro@imate to the time of o%%urren%e on the part of the a%%used !hi%h led or %ompelled the person to %ommit sui%ide  %on/i%tion in terms of Se%tion <06 +P- is not sustainable. A profitable referen%e in this regard %an be made to a 4udgment passed by the Hon1ble Supreme -ourt in %ase titled as N*4un (ne,a and others vs) State of /ttar 5radesh ? Neutra# C*tat*on No)2024 INSC 363, rele/ant !hereof reads as under: "21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations I attest to the accuracy and and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations. CRA-AS-148-2023              10

¶22The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full# fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full#fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions. We do understand and appreciate the feelings and sentiments of the family members of the deceased and we cannot find any fault on their part if they decide to lodge a First Information Report with the police. However, it is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial just for the sake of prosecuting them.F ).    +n the light of the abo/e prin%iples laid do!n by the Hon1ble Supreme -ourt  + ha/e thoughtfully %onsidered the arguments ad/an%ed on behalf  of  the  appellant   perused  the  entire  %ase  re%ord  and  the  4udgment passed by the learned -ourt belo!. (.    Dhile going through the re%ords of the %ase  it appears that the prose%ution  has  failed  to  satisfa%torily  dis%harge  its  burden  of  proof  by presenting %redible and reliable e/iden%e or !itnesses. +t is a !ell;settled prin%iple of la! that the burden rests upon the prose%ution to establish the guilt of the a%%used through %ogent and %on/in%ing e/iden%e  and any failure to do so entitles the a%%used to the benefit of doubt. 3he %ase put forth by the CRA-AS-148-2023              11

prosecution is riddled with material discrepancies, as discussed below, that substantially undermine its credibility and foundational strength.

10.    At the outset it will be apposite to consider the main thrust of the prosecution case as revealed from the evidence on record for deciding the culpability of the accused in the incident in question. As per the case put forth by the prosecution, it was alleged that the accused subjected his wife, Anita, to cruelty and abetted her to commit suicide, which she tragically did on 14.05.2019.  It is alleged that the persistent acts of harassment by the accused, including physical and emotional abuse, alongwith his extramarital affair,  created  an  unbearable  situation  for  the  deceased  and  ultimately leading to her death.

10.1    Firstly,  PW-1  Basant  Kumar,  Assistant  Director,  Scene  of Crime, testified vide his report (Exh.P-1) that no struggle or injury marks were found on the body of the deceased or clothes during the site visit on

14.05.2019 at 5:30 p.m. Surprisingly, the prosecution did not question him about any injuries. Similarly, the inquest report (Exh.P-4) makes no mention of injuries. PW-2 Dr. Rahul Yadav had admitted that he did not specify the duration  of  injuries  in  column  No.4  and  acknowledged  that  it  is  not reasonably  impossible  that  insect  bites  could  resemble  like  a  bruise  as mentioned  in  column  No.4.  The  Medical  Board  did  not  opine  that  these injuries were the cause of death. Furthermore, PW-13 ASI Parvinder has categorically confirmed that the accused was in Delhi on 14.05.2019 and returned  only  after  receiving  the  information  regarding  the  suicide committed by the deceased. Thus, there is no conclusive evidence to hold that the accused has caused the injuries.

10.2    As  per  the  prosecution,  the  deceased,  Anita  Kumari,  was abetted to commit suicide due to harassment caused by the accused namely CRA-AS-148-2023              12

Tanender,  who  allegedly  maintained  an  illicit  relationship  with  another woman.  The  prosecution  had  relied  heavily  on  the  testimonies  of  PW-9 Ramphal  (father  of  the  deceased)  and  PW-10  Ombir  (brother  of  the deceased) to substantiate the charge under Section 306 IPC.  PW-9 (father of the deceased) had testified that the deceased was harassed due to the alleged extra-marital affair of the accused and that the family had intervened in April 2019.  However,  he  admitted  that  there  were  no  prior  complaints  of harassment  during  the  subsentence  of  08  years  of  the  marriage  of  the deceased. The said witness also expressed doubts about the authenticity of the suicide note and the circumstances of the death.  Furthermore, PW-10 (brother of the deceased) claimed that her sister (since deceased) disclosed the harassment and beatings due to the alleged affair of the accused about 1½  months  before  her  death.  He,  however,  admitted  that  her  sister  was happily living until shortly before the incident in question.  He had also admitted that no complaint was lodged against the accused prior to the death of  her  sister.    Moreover,  no  independent  or  corroborative  evidence  was presented to substantiate the allegations of harassment or an extra-marital affair of the accused by these star witnesses which casts a significant doubt in the narrative as promulgated by the prosecution. Moreover, the identity of the woman with whom the accused allegedly had an extra-marital affair was neither known nor verified.

10.3    It is borne out from the record that the deceased was married to the  accused  on  06.03.2011  and  the  incident  in  question  took  place  on

14.05.2019  which  goes  to  show  that  the  marriage  of  the  deceased  had survived  for  more  than  08  years  without  any  iota  of  complaint  or  even whisper of allegation against the accused. The key prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-9 and PW-10 has nowhere alleged or it is neither decipherable from the CRA-AS-148-2023              13

record that these witnesses had lodged any complaint against the accused or objected  to  it.    The  deceased  lived  with  the  accused  in  a  stable  marital relationship for over 08 years and there were no allegations of discord until shortly before her death.  Moreover, the deceased's last rites were conducted in  her  matrimonial  home  without  any  protest  from  her  family.    In  the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the involvement of the accused in persistent cruelty or abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC.  Moreover, the evidence presented by the prosecution is speculative and unsubstantiated. The testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 have failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused abetted the deceased's suicide. There is no evidence to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC. Thus, the allegations remain unproven and weakens the claim of the prosecution that the accused was maltreating the deceased  which  compelled  her  to  commit  suicide.    The  prosecution  has failed to establish that the alleged extra-marital relationship, even if assumed to be true, amounted to an act which in itself was sufficient to provoke, incite or compel the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. There is no evidence on record to suggest that the accused harbored any aversion toward the deceased.  In the considered opinion of this Court the prosecution has neither alleged nor proved that the conduct of the accused created an unbearable or oppressive situation that drove the deceased to a state of utter despair, leaving her with no recourse but to end her life.  The mere  existence  of  an  extra-marital  affair,  without  substantial  proof  of instigation, harassment or any willful act intended to compel the deceased to commit suicide, cannot constitute abetment under the purview of law.

11.    The case of the prosecution is further undermined by the fact that the alleged suicide note which was written in the diary by the deceased CRA-AS-148-2023              14

was taken into possession by PW-13 ASI Parvinder.  The same was sent to FSL,  Bhondsi  for  Forensic  examination  and  the  opinion  given  by  the handwriting  expert  is  that  it  is  not  feasible  to  form  a  definite  opinion regarding the same.  It is well settled law that in cases of inconclusive expert testimony, the Court must exercise caution before attributing any evidentiary weight to such findings.   Hence, in the absence of definite expert opinion, reliance  on  the  disputed  hand-written  suicide  note  would  contravene  the principles of fair trial.

11.1    Furthermore, nothing has been brought on record to show any action/grievance raised by the deceased or the above-said star prosecution witnesses  regarding  the  alleged  maltreatment  prior  to  the  death  of  the deceased.  Moreover,  the  aforesaid  prosecution  witnesses  have  failed  to disclose  certain  material  relevant  facts  initially  but  later  represent  a significant shift in their narrative. These substantial alteration/discrepancies undermine the credibility of the case of the prosecution and it fails to meet the standard  of  proving  the  guilt  beyond  a  reasonable doubt  and  casts  a significant element of doubt regarding the alleged incident in question and potentially weakens the case of the prosecution. The glaring inconsistency of the key prosecution witnesses directly impacts the credibility and the case of the prosecution.  Such discrepancies cannot be lightly overlooked as they strike at the very root of the prosecution's narrative and reliability of the evidence presented.  In criminal jurisprudence, where the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution to establish the guilt beyond the reasonable doubt, the contradicting/conflicting statement of star prosecution witnesses significantly undermine the ability of the prosecution to prove the charges conclusively and potentially warranting an acquittal of the accused by giving him  the  benefit  of  doubt.    Moreover,  there  is  no  reasonable  explanation CRA-AS-148-2023              15

forthcoming either from the evidence produced by the prosecution or records of the case or from the averments made in the present appeal, on the aspect of alterations/contradictions.

12.    It is a well established principle in criminal jurisprudence that the  burden  of  proof  rests  squarely  upon  the  prosecution,  which  must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Any failure to meet  this  standard,  particularly  when  key  evidence  is  either  missing  or questionable,  entitled  the  accused  to  the  benefit  of  doubt.  It  has  been consistently held that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for proof, and where there exists any reasonable doubt, the benefit of such doubt must be given to the accused and he must be acquitted in accordance with law. In light of the above discussed discrepancies and inconsistencies, it can safely be inferred that the case put forth by the prosecution is false and there is no evidence of the alleged incident as projected by the complainant. Where the prosecution has failed to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt, as has happened in the case in hand, the defence, if any, raised/pleaded by the accused recedes into the background and rather becomes immaterial.

13.    The legal framework under Section 306 IPC mandates that to sustain a conviction for abetment of suicide, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused played a direct and active role in instigating, provoking, or compelling the deceased to take their own life. The evidence must clearly demonstrate that the accused engaged in specific, overt acts of incitement or provided such alarming encouragement that the deceased was left with no reasonable alternative but to commit suicide. This legal  standard  underscores  the  necessity  of  proving  a  proximate  and unambiguous  connection  between  the  conduct  of  the  accused  and  the decision of the deceased to end their life. In the present case, as detailed in CRA-AS-148-2023              16

the preceding discussion, the prosecution has utterly failed to satisfy this burden of proof. The evidence on record does not establish any clear or cogent  link  between  the  accused's  actions  and  the  deceased's  decision  to commit  suicide.  Mere  allegations  or  circumstantial  evidence,  without substantive proof of instigation or a direct nexus, are insufficient to sustain a charge  under  Section  306  IPC.  Thus,  the  prosecution's  inability  to demonstrate any act of incitement or compelling conduct by the accused renders its case untenable, and the charge of abetment of suicide cannot be sustained in law.  Moreover, the commission of offence under Section 498-A of IPC remains unsubstantiated.  The alleged simple injuries on the body of the  deceased  were  neither  noted  by  PW-1  Baswant  Kumar,  Assistant Director, Scene of Crime, in his report (EXh.P-1) nor by the Investigating Officer  during  the  inquest.      There  is  no  evidence  to  establish  that  the accused inflicted the injuries or that his conduct was of such a nature as to drive the deceased to commit suicide.  The medical evidence is inconclusive and insufficient to support a charge of physical cruelty against the accused. In  the  instant  case,  the  prosecution  has  miserably  failed  to  discharge  its liability.

14.    In the facts and circumstances of the entire case coupled with the  presence  of  multiple  lacunae  as  also  inconsistencies  in  the  case,  the learned Additional Sessions Judge, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the story  put  forth  by  the  prosecution  was  untrustworthy  and  the  allegations raised lack substance.

15.    The facts of the case clearly narrate that the prosecution has tried to conceal the real genesis of the case.  However, the Court below has meticulously and judiciously examined the matter, appreciating the facts and evidence in their proper context.  The Court below has rightly discerned the CRA-AS-148-2023              17

attempt  of  the  prosecution  to  distort  the  narrative  and  has  delivered  the findings based on through evaluation of the material on record.

16.    Perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below shows that the entire evidence led by the prosecution has been gone through in detail and in a painstaking manner and has dealt with each and  every  aspect  of  the  case  in  a  pragmatic  manner.    The  judgment  of acquittal is based on sound reasoning; does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. As such, the judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, is upheld.  Resultantly, the present appeal, being bereft of merits, fails and is dismissed.

17.    Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

December 05, 2024 Ajay

CRA-AS-148-2023 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 108 CRA-AS-148-2023 Date of decision: 05.12.2024 Ramphal ....Appellant V/s State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. *****