news details |
|
|
| Court acquits husband, others from charges of abetment to suicide | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu|Sep- 2nd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu AK Koul today acquitted Yash Pal s/o Girdhari Lal and Ashu wife of Subash Chander brother of Yash Pal, who were facing trial for abetment of suicide and cruelty for the last 10 years. According to the prosecution case on June 4, 1997, the father of the deceased Des Raj lodged a written report with the police that his daughter Prabha w/o Yash Pal accused has died to due to hanging. Accused Yash Pal and Ashu had developed illicit relation, which deceased Prabha had noticed and so accused killed her. The deceased had informed her mother, her sister-in-law (brother’s wife) and sister, when she came to her parental home in connection with marriage of her brother. The police after investigation registered a case u/s 498-A/ 306 RPC and presented challan in court of law against seven persons including accused Yash Pal and Ashu. However, Court discharged five persons except accused Yash Pal and Ashu and framed charges against them u/s 306/498-A of RPC.
The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state and Adv KK Pangotra appearing for the accused persons, quoted various judgments and observed that deceased has died within seven years of her marriage and so a presumption can be drawn in terms of section 113 A of Evidence Act, that she was subjected to cruelty which ultimately led her to commit suicide. Such a presumption can be drawn only when it is proved that deceased was being subjected to cruelty. In the present case that only two charges are leveled against accused, one that they have illicit relations with each other and another that they assaulted her physically and demanded cash and scooter. Deceased has not given her version in the form of dying declaration. Her parents, brother and sister deposed about the aspect of cruelty. Their testimony when taken together does not appear to be so convincing, which could suffice to invoke section 113-A of Evidence Act. Apart from that whatever evidence is on record it has come from the close relatives of deceased and none else. It is interesting to note that two important independent witnesses have been left out by prosecution and examined by the defence. One can understand that particular witnesses may not support the prosecution case, but deposing as defence witnesses, knocks at the base of the case and makes the entire story doubtful. Again another important witness has also been left out by prosecution. Thus in view of all what has been stated above, one can fairly conclude that there are so many infirmities in the case which are so material that it becomes impossible for the court to believe the complicity of the accused in commission of crime attributed to them. Even if the allegations against the accused are taken on their face value still the nexus between the accused and guilt does not get established. Entire prosecution story appears to be doubtful and so the Court has no option but to disbelieve the prosecution story so the case fails and is accordingly dismissed. Accused are acquitted from the charges leveled against them. JNF
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
