Vinod Kumar vs State & Anr on 21 December, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 667 / 2013
Vinod Kumar son of Tola Chand Panchal, resident of Diwara Bada,
Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan.

2. Deepak son of Shri Dinesh Chandra Panchal, resident of
Bhiluda, Chitari Police Station, District Dungarpur.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.MC Bishnoi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.OP Rathi, P.P.

__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
21/12/2017

The petitioner Vinod Kumar has approached this Court by

way of this revision being aggrieved of the order dated 22.8.2013

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur Camp

Sagwara in Sessions Case No.55/2013 whereby, charges were

directed to be framed against him for the offences under Sections

498A and 306 IPC.

Facts in brief are that Smt. Deepika (referred to herein as

the deceased) was married to Suresh Chandra Panchal about 12

years before the incident. A son and a daughter were born from

her wedlock with Suresh Panchal. She allegedly called her brother

Deepak on 14.7.2012 in the morning at about 9:30 AM and

complained that her mother-in-law and her husband were

quarreling with her and her brother-in-law (Devar) was also
(2 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]

threatening that she should either be turned out of the house or

killed. Just 15 minutes later, Suresh called him and informed that

Deepika had caught fire. On this, Deepak rushed to the Village

Diwara Bada and saw the dead body of Deepika lying in the rear

courtyard of her matrimonial home. An FIR was lodged by Deepak

at P.S. Chitari with the specific allegation that his sister was

harassed and humiliated by her husband, mother-in-law and

Pawan and as a result thereof, she committed suicide. On the

basis of this report, an FIR No.129/2012 was registered for the

offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and investigation

commenced. During course of investigation, the I.O. collected

evidence to the effect that the deceased was carrying on an affair

with the present petitioner who happens to be a cousin brother of

Suresh. She went missing upon which Suresh got a search

warrant issued from the Court of S.D.M., Sagwara and in

pursuance thereof, the lady was traced out on 12.7.2012. As

desired by her, she was allowed to go with her husband. The first

informant, upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. resiled

from the allegations set out in the FIR and stated that the FIR had

been lodged against the husband and inlaws on an impulse and as

a matter of fact, the deceased had committed suicide because she

felt grave ignominy on account of her seduction by Vinod. He

further alleged that Vinod had done some black magic on his late

sister and as a result, she committed suicide. Similar allegations

were leveled by Suresh Chand husband of the deceased, Smt.

Santok her mother-in-law, Geeta and numerous other witnesses

examined during investigation. These witnesses also alleged that
(3 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]

accused forcibly put a sim in Deepika’s mobile and also did some

black magic on her and as a result thereof, she became mentally

perturbed. She was very troubled because of the situation created

by the disclosure of her relations with the petitioner and as a

result, feeling ashamed, she committed suicide. In view of these

statements, the I.O. filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for

the offences under Sections 498A and 306 IPC.

The trial Court drew the following inferences and directed

framing of charges against the petitioner as above :-

Þfo}ku vfHkHkk”kd Jh e;ad nks’kh dk rdZ gS fd e`rdk
dks mlds llqjky okyksa us vfHk;qDr fouksn ds lkFk Hkkx tkus
dks ysdj rkus fn, Fks] ftlls ijs’kku gksdj e`rdk us Lo;a
dks vkx yxkdj vkRegR;k dh gS] ftlds fy, vfHk;qDr
fouksn dks mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA
ysfdu eSa bl rdZ ls fcYdqy Hkh izHkkfor ugha gwa] D;ksafd
ifr] lkl o tsB dk ?kj dh cgq dks fdlh nhxj O;fDr ds
lkFk Hkkx tkus ij rkus nsuk furkar LokHkkfod ckr gSA e`rdk
8 o”khZ; iqh o 5 o”khZ; iq dh eka Fkh o fookfgrk iRuh
ds :i esa vius llqjky esa jg jgh Fkh] ftls vius lkFk laca/k
cukus ds fy, mdlkus dk vfHk;qDr fouksn dks u rks dkuwuu]
u gh uSfrd dksbZ vf/kdkj Fkk] fo’ks”kr% tcfd ;fn vfHk;qDr
tknw earj dj e`rdk dks /kkxk ugha igukrk ;k viuh
fle }kjk mls Qksu ugha djrk] mls vius lkFk Hkkx tkus
ds fy, ugha mdlkrk o vius lkFk ugha ys tkrk rks ;g
lEiw.kZ ?kVukØe gh tUe ugha ysrk] blfy, bl LVst ij
vfHk;qDr fouksn e`rdk dh vkRegR;k ds mRrjnkf;Ro ls eqDr
ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA pwafd vfHk;qDr fouksn e`rdk dk
fj’rs esa tsB yxrk gS rFkk mlds bl d`R; ls e`rdk
vkRegR;k ds fy, izsfjr gqbZ gSA
bl izdkj esjh fouez jk; esa vfHk;qDr fouksn iapky ds
fo:) HkkŒnaŒlaŒ dh /kkjk 498, o 306 ds v/khu n.Muh;
vijk/k dkfjr fd, tkus dh mi/kkj.kk djus ds izFke n`”V~;k
Ik;kZIr vk/kkj miyC/k ik;s tkrs gSaAß

The said order is under challenge in this revision.

Shri M.C. Bishnoi learned counsel for the petitioner
(4 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]

vehemently urged that ex-facie there is no material on record so

as to justify the order framing charges against the petitioner. He

contended that by no stretch of imagination, an illicit extra marital

affair can be considered to be an act of cruelty within the meaning

of Section 498A IPC. He further urged that there is no material

whatsoever on record of the case to show that the accused ever

instigated the deceased to commit suicide. As per him, the

husband of the deceased was working in the Middle East and in his

absence, the deceased developed an extra marital love affair with

the petitioner. She eloped with the petitioner and her husband

filed an application under Section 98 Cr.P.C. and got issued a

search warrant. In furtherance of the search warrant, the lady was

discovered and at her request, she was allowed to go with her

husband. He urged that there was no contact between the

deceased and accused after the deceased had been sent with the

husband in the proceedings under Section 98 Cr.P.C. and thus, by

no stretch of imagination can the petitioner be held responsible for

instigating or abetting her to commit suicide. Rather, as per Shri

Bishnoi, the matrimonial relatives of the deceased should be held

responsible for her suicide as they taunted the lady after she

returned to the matrimonial home pursuant to the proceedings

under Section 98 Cr.P.C. and as a result thereof, she became

perturbed and ended her life. He thus urged that the revision is fit

to be accepted and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

Per contra learned P.P. vehemently opposed the submissions

advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and urged that the petitioner

is the elder brother-in-law (Jeth) of the deceased. He established
(5 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]

immoral extramarital affairs with the deceased knowing very well

that such a relationship was a Taboo in the society and if exposed,

the matrimonial status of the lady would be destroyed and her

image would be tarnished in the society beyond redemption. The

deceased was regularly called by the accused on a mobile phone,

the sim whereof was provided to her by the accused himself.

When the relationship between the accused and the deceased

became public, the lady became severely perturbed and felt

humiliated and as a direct consequence of the immoral acts of the

accused, she committed suicide. Thus, he contended that the

impugned order does not warrant any interference whatsoever.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned order

and the charge-sheet.

The offence under Section 498A IPC is attracted when there

is an allegation that any matrimonial relative of a woman subjects

her to cruelty either mental or physical on account of demand of

dowry or such cruelty which may lead her to commit suicide. The

circumstances emanating from an extra-marital affair established

by a matured married woman with another man can by no stretch

of imagination can be termed to be cruelty within the meaning of

Section 498A IPC unless the relationship is procured by the male

paramour by fraud or deceit. Thus, ex-facie the impugned order is

grossly illegal to the extent charge under Section 498A IPC was

framed against the accused petitioner.

So far as the charge under Section 306 IPC is concerned that
(6 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]

is also based on the sole inference that Smt.Deepika committed

suicide as a direct result of the exposure of her illicit relations with

the accused petitioner. The deceased was a mature married

woman and she consciously and voluntarily established such

relations with the petitioner. That she felt so perturbed by the

exposure of the relations and could not withstand the ignominious

situation created thereby and ended her life is indeed regrettable

but the fact remains that when two major persons enter into such

type of extra marital liaison, then no extra burden can be put on

the male paramour involved in such amorous relationship. When

the deceased established extramarital relations with the petitioner,

she had to be conscious of the consequences that in case, the

relations were exposed, her image would be tarnished in the

society and her marriage would be put to risk. Thus, the

conclusions drawn by the trial Court in the impugned order that

the suicide committed by the deceased was purely the culmination

of the extramarital relationship and that the petitioner alone was

responsible for such act is totally without foundation. Further, the

conclusion drawn by the trial Court that the accused practiced

some black magic on the deceased and made her to wear some

threads etc. and that had he not made a mobile call to her, the

incident would not have occurred is absolutely conjectural and

fictional. The very fact as mentioned in the impugned order that

the deceased committed suicide as a result of ignominy faced by

her owing to the exposure of her illicit relations with the petitioner

is in itself sufficient to hold that the act in which she indulged was

immoral and she was equally responsible to face the
(7 of 7)
[CRLR-667/2013]

consequences thereof. It is also relevant to mention here that as

per observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order,

the matrimonial relatives taunted the lady after she returned

home pursuant to the proceeding taken by her husband under

Section 98 Cr.P.C. and soon thereafter, she committed suicide.

Apparently thus, taunts and insinuations given by the matrimonial

relatives were the direct cause of suicide committed by the lady

rather than the illicit liaison between her and the petitioner.

As an upshot of the above discussion, I am of the firm

opinion that the impugned order whereby charges were framed

against the petitioner by the learned trial Court for the offences

under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is absolutely illegal and

unjustified. Ex-facie no ingredients of the offences alleged are

made out against the accused petitioner from the highest

allegations of the prosecution.

Consequently, the instant revision petition deserves to be

and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 22.8.2013

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dungarpur Camp

Sagwara in Sessions Case No.55/2013 is hereby quashed and set

aside. The petitioner is discharged from the above offences.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

S.Phophaliya/-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *