Crl.A. No. 1863 of 2008 1

  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 2008

ASSOO ... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .... RESPONDENT

O R D E R  

1. This appeal, by way of special leave, arises out of  

the following facts:

1.1 Jummi  Bai  deceased  had  been  married  with  the  

appellant Assoo, about five years prior to the incident.  

At the time of the marriage, her parents had promised to  

give her a radio- set and watch in the  dowry.  It  

appears,  however,  that  due  to  their  poor  financial  

condition, they were not able to fulfill the demand.  The appellant was, accordingly, upset  with this refusal  and  started  harassing  the  deceased  to  bring  the  aforesaid articles.  Frustrated thereby, on 21st April,  1990 at about 6.30 p.m.,Jummi Bai committed suicide by  setting  herself  on  fire.   The  fact  that  she  had  committed  suicide  was  reported  to  the  police  by  the  appellant  himself.   A  daily  diary  entry  was,  accordingly, made.  The dead body was also sent for its

Crl.A. No. 1863 of 2008 2

post mortem examination and  the doctor opined that the  cause of the death was complications arising out of 100%  burn injuries.  On investigation, however, the police  found  that a case under Section 304-B IPC was made out  against the appellant as he had made repeated demands  for the aforesaid articles and on the inability of her  parents  to  meet  the  demand  he  had  harassed  her  and  driven her to suicide.

1.2 The  prosecution  in  support  of  its  case  placed  reliance on the  evidence of PW1 Rajjab Khan and  PW2  Peer  Khan,   the  father  and  brother  of  the  deceased  respectively. The trial court, on a consideration of the  aforesaid evidence, found that a case under Section 304- B IPC was proved against the appellant and, accordingly,  convicted him under that provision and sentenced him to  seven  years  rigorous  imprisonment.   An  appeal  was  thereafter taken to the High Court.   The High  Court,  vide judgment dated 13th December, 2006, partly allowed  the appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence  awarded by the trial court and convicted the appellant  under  Section  306  IPC  instead  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.  Hence,  this appeal by way of special leave.

Crl.A. No. 1863 of 2008 3

2. The learned counsel for the appellant has at the  very outset, pointed out that the evidence of PWs 1 and  2 could not be believed as they were relatives of the  deceased  and that PW3 None Lal,  another prosecution  witness, had completely disowned the prosecution story  and had given a different version all  together, which,  if  accepted,  would  absolve  the  appellant  of  any  misconduct.  He has further argued that even assuming  that there had been a quarrel between the appellant and  his wife, it was not of such a nature which would have  led her to commit suicide as envisaged under Section 306  IPC.

3. Mr.  Vibha  Dutta  Makhija,  the  learned  counsel  appearing for the State has, however, has supported the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  submitted  that   the  evidence clearly showed that appellant had harassed his  wife on account of her inability to bring the radio and  the watch as demanded and that the  ill-treatment had  driven her to suicide.   

4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the  learned counsel.  At the very outset we must note that  the appellant has been acquitted by the High Court of  the charge under Section 304-B IPC.  The question now

Crl.A. No. 1863 of 2008 4

arises as to his culpability under Section 306 of the  IPC. We have perused the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the  father and brother of the deceased . PW – 1 testified  that his daughter had been reprimanded by the appellant  as  she was not manufacturing enough beedis and that he  had also beaten her  as she was not able to fulfill his  demand for a watch and a radio.  PW2 Peer Khan, the  brother  of  the  deceased,  however,  admitted   in  his  cross-examination  that  the  appellant  had  not  made  a  demand for a radio and watch but they had themselves  promised to supply these items although they had not  been able to keep their word.  

5. We are of the opinion that besides the evidence  of Pws 1 and 2, which itself is extremely shaky, there  is   no  other  statement  to  show  any  misbehaviour  or  demands for dowry.  There is also no indication  as to  when these demands had been made.  It must be noted that  every quarrel between a husband and wife which results  in a  suicide cannot be taken as an abetment by the  husband and the standard of a reasonable and practical  woman as compared to a headstrong and over sensitive  one, has to be applied.   Taking the evidence against  the appellant, as it is, we find that no abetment of  suicide is made out.  We have  also perused the evidence

Crl.A. No. 1863 of 2008 5

of PW 3 None Lal, a neighbour, and one of the first to  arrive at the spot.  He gave a story which completely  dislodges the statements of PWs 1 and 2.  He deposed in  his cross-examination that Shri Bai, a neighbour of the  appellant,  had made allegations against the deceased in  the  presence  of  Ghaffoor  and  Ishaq  that   she  was  involved in illicit activities while her husband was  away and  that she would reveal all to her husband when  he  returned  home  and  that  immediately  after  these  remarks the appellant had returned home on which the  deceased had gone inside and set herself ablaze.  We  take it, therefore, as if the prosecution had accepted  the statement of PW3 as  true, as the witenss had not  been declared hostile.  

6. We, accordingly, set-aside the impugned judgment  and  allow the appeal. The appellant stands acquitted.

   .........................J     [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

  ..........................J     [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]  

NEW DELHI. APRIL 26, 2011.