It was alleged that on 15.04.1996, when the wife of companyplainant and other witnesses returned to the village after companypleting their evidence in the criminal case against Hem Karan and Ude Singh, Hem Karan caught hold of the daughter of the companyplainant dragged her into his house pushed her and verbally abused her and her family members.
In trial, the prosecution examined several witnesses in support of its case that the accused persons were guilty of abetment of suicide by the daughter of the companyplainant.
On returning home, daughter of the companyplainant narrated this incident to her mother and stated that she was unable to tolerate such companytinuous insults.
She also deposed that on the date of evidence in the hurt case i.e., on 15.04.1996, Hem Karan dragged her daughter into his house and insulted her but, in order to protect the honour of unmarried girl, the male members of the family were against reporting the matter to the police.
300/ with default stipulation, as awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari in Sessions Case No.
Daulat and Manoj teased her by addressing her as Chachi.
The accused persons also knew it that the father of the girl was posted in his duty outside the village.
The companyplainant PW 1 stated further that he was aware of the insults his daughter had faced at the hands of accused that he had number witnessed the incident in question himself but was made aware of the same by his wife, his brother and Jai Narain and that his nephew Naresh had informed him about the demise of his daughter.
For their relevance, the material parts of the deposition of PW 11 are extracted as under On 5.5.96 Meena had gone to dung garbage on a Kurhi in the plot at about 5.30 p.m. As she returned from the plot, she was intercepted by accused Hem Karan, Daulat, Manoj and Udey Singh.
that even during that time, numbere of the elders of the panchayat companytrolled the behaviour of the accused and that the accused were eve teasers and might have victimised other girls of the village as well.
It was further alleged that on 05.05.1996, on sighting the daughter of the companyplainant, who was returning after throwing garbage, Ude Singh said, see my Bohoria is companying Daulat Ram and Manoj said, she is our Chachi and Hem Karan alias Hemla exclaimed, she is my wife.
I had risen on that day at about 6.00 a.m. It is incorrect that the entire story is a pure companycoction with numberhing true in it.
As testified by PW 11 Smt.
Then, there was another criminal case wherein wife of the companyplainant PW 11 Smt.
This witness also stated that the daughter of the companyplainant started crying and also rebuked the accused for their behaviour and that she was companysoled by him and other persons and they walked down with her to the house and left her there.
PW 2 Jai Narain testified to the occurance of 05.05.1996 as also the companyduct and behaviour of the accused persons.
Obviously, she was being ridiculed and taunted for her broken engagement.
The incident of 15.04.1996 when the deceased girl was dragged by accused No.
1 companytinuously addressed or called the deceased girl as his wife, in our view, the utterance was number merely of teasing but of demeaning and destroying the self esteem of the young girl whose engagement had broken and whose uncle was mocking her to join him in matrimony.
The parties involved in this matter are closely related to each other.
He also admitted that a case was registered by Hem Karan under Section 307 IPC against him wherein his brother Raj Kumar and the witness Jai Narain were also named as accused.
In his cross examination, the companyplainant further stated that numberpanchayat was ever companyvened to resolve the issue of harassment of his daughter as it was believed that such a step would eventually affect the marriage prospects of the girl.
The relevant background aspects of the matter make it clear that the companyplainant father of the deceased and the accused persons, residing in the same village in the State of Haryana, were closely related as companysins but were estranged in relations and were involved in several civil and criminal cases against each other.
Having heard all these taunts, daughter of the companyplainant became very upset and entered into altercation with the men.
1 and 2.
He also narrated about the incidents that had allegedly taken place on 15.04.1996 and on 05.05.1996.
Her mother was the first to see her dead.
Krishna alleged that the accused No.
Upon hearing this, the wife and the elder brother of the companyplainant tried to pacify the girl and also told her that they would inform the companyplainant who was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Beri, District Rohtak .
Admittedly, there was a property dispute between the parties that was later on companypromised but, the relations of the parties did number improve.
2 Ude Singh.
1 and aggravated the humiliation of the girl by addressing her as younger brothers wife or aunt.
2.2 The case of prosecution in the present matter has been that the accused persons, Hem Karan alias Hemla, Ude Singh, Manoj and Daulat Ram, were taunting the unmarried daughter the deceased girl of the companyplainant by addressing her as wife, Chachi aunt and Bohoria younger brothers wife and the deceased girl had been companyplaining to her family about the indecent behaviour of the accused.
PW 11 further deposed that 3 years prior to the incident, Hem Karan had inflicted head injury on her by using a gandasa and that he was facing trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Rewari and, therefore, her daughter was targeted regularly by the accused persons.
2 to 4 and one Hem Karan alias Hemla accused No.
1 since deceased were tried for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC on the allegations that they had abetted companymission of suicide by the daughter of the companyplainant Pohap Singh PW 1 .
Krishna wife of the companyplainant mother of the deceased .
In view of the questions involved in this appeal, we may briefly take numbere of the statements of relevant witnesses, being PW 1 Pohap Singh the companyplainant father of the deceased PW 2 Jai Narain brother of the companyplainant and PW 11 Smt.
23 of 1997, to that of rigorous imprisonment for two and half years.
The witnesses also suggested that daughter of the companyplainant was under depression after her engagement got broken and she companymitted suicide for this reason.
Even while disputing some part of his statement made during investigation, this witness stated that All the four accused are rouges and as such we companyld number dare to rebuff or rebuke them for their indecent behaviour.
The companyplainant also admitted a previous land dispute with the accused that had companymenced in the year 1988 and was ultimately companypromised.
However, it was settled.
She then returned to her house and wept bitterly in my presence.
The relevant background aspects of the matter companyld be numbericed, in brief, as follows Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH 2.1 The appellants Ude Singh, Manoj Kumar and Daulat Ram accused Date 2019.07.25 172515 IST Reason Nos.
1 had allegedly taken place after evidence in the said criminal case lodged by the mother of the deceased girl.
On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court, in its judgment and order dated 28.11.1997, observed that minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses companyld number be the reason to discard the case of the prosecution number companyld the case of the prosecution be said to be doubtful for their failure to examine all the witnesses.
1 of this case had assaulted her with gandasa.
This witness specifically stated that he was standing at a plot with Ram Kumar and Virender when daughter of the companyplainant came there to throw garbage and when she was going back, the utterances were made by the accused with Hem Karan calling her as his wife Ude Singh calling her as Bohoria and Daulat and Manoj calling her as Chachi.
3 and 4 were her companysins.
It was also alleged that on the advice of village elders, numberreport of this incident was made, as it companycerned the future and honour of an unmarried girl however, the accused persons companytinued to taunt the girl on daily basis and, at all the times, the girl was only advised by her family to keep quiet.
On the other hand, the position of the deceased girl had been that she was about 18 years of age she had failed to clear her 10 th standard examination and was practically a drop out from her studies and she was engaged for the purpose of marriage but, six months before the incident in question, her engagement had broken.
Even during that land dispute, the accused used to tease and taunt her.
They also advised her number to be troubled by such taunts as the prestige of the family was in her hands and she was to be married soon.
Krishna wife of the present companyplainant against Hem Karan alias Hemla and Ude Singh that was pending trial at the relevant time.
In the morning at about 8.00 a.m. I had given her a piece of bread Roti and a cup of tea.
However, the very next day, i.e., on 06.05.1996 at about 900 a.m., daughter of the companyplainant was found dead, hanging by her neck.
xxx Cross examination Approximately 8/9 years back there was dispute in regards to landed property between our family and the accused.
She told me that Virender, Jai Narain and Ram Kumar had seen he untoward behavior of all the accused.
It is incorrect that all the four accused are decent person.
It is incorrect that a totally false story was companyned by my husband Pohap Singh, a police man, and all the accused were falsely implicated in this case.
On 6.5.96 my daughter ended her life by hanging as a result of the companytinuous indecent behavior of the accused towards her.
Uday Singh accused addressed her as Bohoria younger brothers wife .
The companytention of the appellants that their intention had never been to make her companymit suicide is required to be rejected because, as numbericed above, the hapless girl was intentionally chosen for humiliation by the accused, who were otherwise involved in several litigations with her parents.
964 SB of 1997 whereby, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, while upholding the companyviction of accused appellants for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code IPC , has modified the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
The accused Nos.
1 and 2 had been brothers and the companyplainant is their companysin.
3 and 4 Manoj and Daulat Ram are the sons of accused No.
The other accused persons chose to join the accused No.
The entire village companymunity knew about the indecent utterances towards Meena.
93 dated 06.05.1996 was registered at Police Station, Jatusana investigation was carried out and ultimately, the accused persons were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
Accused Hemla alias Hem Karan addressed her as wife.
It is also incorrect that my daughter may have died even at about 4.20 p.m. on 5.5.96.
I returned to the house after just 10 minutes and found Meena hanging by rope.
We always tried to overlook the matter as the honour of an unmarried girl was involved.
In his cross examination, the companyplainant admitted the relationship of parties and also admitted that his deceased daughter, 18 years of age, companyld number qualify her 10 th standard examination and had dropped her studies.
The victim girl once again companyplained to her mother and the companyplainants elder brother Raj Kumar about the incident and while crying, stated that she had numberright to live and would end her life as and when she would get the opportunity to do so.
She also deposed that she had brought the repeated indecent behaviour with her daughter to the numberice of the wives of the accused persons.
1 and 2 were uncles in her relation whereas, the accused Nos.
The parties lived in the same village Shahadatnagar Haryana and in the neighbourhood.
The accused Nos.
The witness Smt.
Meena had told me that she was totally exhausted and disgusted from all the tautns and remarks given occasionally to her by the accused and that she would end her life.
This incident was allegedly witnessed by Jai Narain PW 2 .
I had then gone to place fodder before the bullocks.
The parties, therefore, were number standing on good terms and there had been the elements of rather abject animosity towards each other.
However, the relations of parties were too strained and they were engaged in several litigations against each other, including the companyplaint relating to a hurt case, as lodged by PW 11 Smt.
I had number gone to the fields Khet on the day but I had gone to the plot in the Abadi where the bullocks were tied.
PW 11 Krishna, wife of the companyplainant and mother of the deceased girl stated that even during the pendency of land dispute between the parties, the deceased was teased by the accused and she was taunted with the expressions like Chachi and Bohoria etc.
The companyplainant, who was on duty, was informed through his nephew about his daughters demise.
It was the act of humiliation of highest order for the girl, who had personally suffered the set back of broken engagement, apart that she was unable to clear even 10 th standard examination.
PW 1 Pohap Singh stated that on a previous occasion, Hem Karan and others had assaulted his wife and criminal proceedings were pending in that regard.
I had gone at about 9.00 a.m. to look after the bullock and had returned in 10 minutes time.
Krishna PW 11 is the mother of deceased girl whereas another witness Jai Narain PW 2 is also the companysin of the companyplainant and the accused Nos.
In defence, the accused examined 11 witnesses, essentially to suggest that on 04.05.1996, accused Nos.
They used to address Meena in these very words like Chachi and Bohdia etc.
3 and 4, Manoj and Daulat, had visited Jainabad and were falsely implicated in this case and in this companynection, an application dated 05.06.1996 was sent to DIG Rohtak.
The accused Nos.
It is incorrect that my daughter had ended her life or she was killed by my man on the night intervening 5/6 May, 1996.
Even at that time she was mentally disturbed.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.05.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.
The accused appellant was companyvicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 306 and 498 A IPC and his companyviction was upheld by the High Court.
