Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC = entitled for acquital = While the handwriting expert testified that the writing in the letter is the same as that of certain notebooks, no independent proof has been led regarding who owned or wrote in the aforesaid notebook. In fact, the only persons who were examined for the purposes of identifying the handwriting of the deceased were her father and cousin. However, how either of them could be said to be acquainted with her writing is unclear. The father of the deceased was her teacher nearly 15 years prior to the incident, and the deceased had admittedly not written any other letter to her father after her marriage. Similarly, the cousin of the deceased also did not have any other letter from the deceased in his possession.

   
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 539­540 OF 2008
JAGDISHRAJ KHATTA               … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                  … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
    N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. These appeals are directed against judgment and order dated
09.01.2008 and 27.02.2008, passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.
356 of 1993, whereby the appeal preferred by the State of Himachal
Pradesh was allowed, and the judgment and order dated 03.04.1993
passed   by   the   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Kangra,   Dharamshala,
Himachal   Pradesh,   acquitting   the   appellant­accused   for   offences
under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, and Section 30 of the
Indian Arms Act, was set aside.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant, who
NON­REPORTABLE
1
was   posted   as   the   Forest   Range   Officer   at   Jawalamukhi,   at   the
relevant time, was residing with the deceased (his wife) and two
minor children. On 07.01.1990, at about 10 a.m., within seven years
of the deceased’s marriage with the appellant, the deceased used the
appellant’s gun to kill herself. On receiving information about her
death, the deceased’s mother, cousin, brother in law and father’s
neighbor went to Jawalamukhi, and the inquest report was prepared
in their presence. After the funeral ceremonies were completed, on
08.01.1990 at around 11 p.m., the deceased’s cousin lodged a report
against the appellant herein, alleging that the appellant drove the
deceased   to   commit   suicide   as   he   continuously   subjected   the
deceased   to   cruelty,   harassment,   physical   violence   and   even
mistreated her and insulted her in the presence of her parents and
relatives. Subsequently, on 13.01.1990, the father of the deceased
produced a letter allegedly written to him by the deceased, which he
received on 10.01.1990. The contents of the letter supported the
allegations made against the appellant in the FIR, regarding cruelty
and harassment towards the deceased.
3. The appellant was charged under Sections 498A and 306 of the
IPC and Section 30 of the Indian Arms Act. The Trial Court, after
2
considering the material against the appellant, acquitted him of all
the charges. On appeal by the State, the High Court reversed the
findings   of   the   Trial   Court   and   convicted   the   appellant   for   the
offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the IPC and sentenced him
to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000, in
default of payment of which he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a further period of six months, for the offence under Section 306,
IPC, and one­year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000, in
default of payment of which he is to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a further period of three months, for the offence under Section
498A, IPC, with both sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the
judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred
the present appeals before us.
4. The   counsel   for   the   appellant   strongly   urged   that   the   High
Court erred in relying on a letter which was allegedly sent by the
deceased to her relatives in overturning the well­reasoned judgment
of the Trial Court. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the letter
was   surrounded   by   suspicious   circumstances   which   were   not
considered by the High Court, such as the fact that there was a delay
in   handing   over   the   letter   to   the   police,   which   delay   was   not
3
explained, and that the family of the deceased had never received
any other letter from the deceased, who had a phone connection and
often   used  to   be  visited  by  her family.  Additionally,  the  counsel
submitted that the High Court did not consider that the notebook,
which   was   used   as   a   handwriting   sample   of   the   deceased   for
comparison purposes, was not proved to belong to the deceased. As
such, the learned counsel for the appellant supported the findings of
the Trial Court and prayed that the High Court’s findings be set
aside, and the appellant be acquitted.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentState supported the findings of the High Court and submitted that
the same do not merit any interference by this Court.
6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsels of both parties.
7. On perusing the judgment of the High Court, we find that it
has reversed the findings of the Trial Court by mainly relying on the
following   evidences:   (1)   the   testimonies   of   the   relatives   of   the
deceased that the appellant acted in a cruel manner against the
deceased in front of her relatives, and  (2) the letter allegedly written
by the deceased around the time of her death to her parents.
8. With respect to the former, we are unable to agree with the
reasoning of the High Court in relying on the testimonies of the
4
relatives of the deceased. As highlighted by the Trial Court, not only
were the allegations in the FIR extremely general in nature, but also
the same were never raised by the family of the deceased when they
were present at the time of preparation of the inquest report or to the
investigating officer. In fact, the allegation of cruelty meted out by the
appellant against the deceased appears for the first time at the time
of filing the FIR, after a delay of nearly one and a half days. Further,
the prosecution did not even examine any neighbor of the appellant
and the deceased to substantiate the allegation that the appellant illtreated the deceased. In fact, and as the High Court also recorded, it
appears from the evidence on record that the appellant treated the
deceased with love and affection and provided for all her needs. In
these circumstances, a reliance on the general oral testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, without any supporting evidence, would be
misplaced.  Further,  as  the   High  Court   itself   indicated  somewhat
contradictorily, reliance on the instances testified to by the witnesses
would not be appropriate as the said incidents had taken place much
before the deceased’s death and could not be treated as conduct
which drove the deceased to commit suicide.
5
9. This brings us to the second part of the High Court’s reasoning
in convicting the appellant, relating to the letter allegedly sent by the
deceased to her parents one day before her death. We are again
unable to accept the findings of the High Court on this point. We
agree with the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the
letter has not been proved to have been written by the deceased and
is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. While the handwriting
expert testified that the writing in the letter is the same as that of
certain notebooks, no independent proof has been led regarding who
owned or wrote in the aforesaid notebook. In fact, the only persons
who were examined for the purposes of identifying the handwriting of
the deceased were her father and cousin. However, how either of
them could be said to be acquainted with her writing is unclear. The
father of the deceased was her teacher nearly 15 years prior to the
incident, and the deceased had admittedly not written any other
letter to her father after her marriage. Similarly, the cousin of the
deceased also did not have any other letter from the deceased in his
possession. 
10. Most   importantly,   the   letter   was   received   by   the   deceased’s
father on 10.01.1990 but was handed over to the police only on
6
13.01.1990, casting serious doubt on the authenticity of the letter.
The fact that the deceased had never written any other letter to her
family after her marriage but had rather been in touch with her
relatives through the telephone, further strengthens the case of the
appellant.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as
well as the material placed before us, we hold that the prosecution
was not able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. Additionally, we are of the opinion that this was not a fit case
for the High Court to interfere with the well­reasoned judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, particularly when there
existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court. [See
Bannareddy and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2018) 5
SCC 790]. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appeals are allowed,
and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court are set
aside. The judgment and order of the Trial Court, acquitting the
appellant herein, is therefore affirmed.
7
12. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.   
..............................................J.
                                                                      (N.V. RAMANA)
 ..............................................J.
 (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 26, 2019.
8