IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 664 of 2002 Date of Decision : 27.9.2011 ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Vijay Kumar & Others ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General For the Respondent: Mr. Abhishek Sood, Advocate, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, J(oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 7.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions case No. 10-N/99, acquitting the accused/respondents for offences under Sections 498-A, 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 304-B read with Section 34, IPC in reference to FIR No. 165/97. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Asha Devi (Victim/deceased) a matriculate was married to Vijay Kumar on 14.2.1997. Whenever the victim was visiting her parental house she made complaint about demand of dowry specifically mentioning that the family members of her husband used to say that jewelry given at the time of marriage was of poor quality, washing machine was not given and the members of the marriage party were not properly served food on chairs and tables. On 12.7.1997 Sidhu Ram (PW1), the father of the victim received telephonic message that victim was being tortured and as such she should be taken from her in-laws house. When PW2 Dinesh, the brother of the victim went to the victim and on return told that the in-laws of the victim refused to sent the victim on the ground that it was their family matter and they would solve the same among themselves. On 14.7.1997 accused Man Mohan Singh came to the house of PW1 and informed that victim had been admitted in Rehan Hospital and as such, PW1 along with his son PW2, his wife PW8 and Naresh Kumar then came to Rehan where they did not find victim there and came thereafter to the house of the accused where the victim 3 was found lying dead. FIR was lodged and the matter was investigated. The accused were charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses, whereas, on behalf of accused two defence witnesses have been examined. Accused/respondents in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the harassment of the deceased. Accused/respondents have also denied that the deceased had written letter Ex. PA which was received by PW1 on 15.7.1997. Accused/respondent Vijay Kumar, husband of the victim through his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. has stated that he was innocent and has falsely been implicated as neither any demand of washing machine was made nor maltreatment was given to the victim, so much so, Vijay Kumar accused stated that deceased was mentally ill before the marriage as she was being treated by her father from “chelas” and when such information was given to him/Vijay Kumar in June, 1997 he took the victim from the house of his in-laws for the purpose of getting the victim treated from doctor. 4. PW1 Sidhu Ram in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that her daughter had consumed poison on account of maltreatment at the 4 hands of the accused. PW1 also stated that on 15.7.1997 he received a letter written by her daughter/victim/deceased which he handed over to the police. PW1 has very categorically stated in cross- examination that when victim came in his house in June, 1997, he did not make any complaint in writing to Gram Panchayat. Further stated that he only informed the Panchayat regarding the maltreatment of the deceased/victim and has admitted that accused/respondent Vijay Kumar came to his house and took victim to the matrimonial house. Thereafter PW1 neither made any complaint to Gram Panchayat or took his son-in-law before Gram Panchayat for settlement of dispute. PW1 also stated in cross-examination that he did not replace any jewelry on the ground of being inferior quality and had not given washing machine in reference to the demand raised by the accused persons. PW1 in cross-examination has very categorically asserted that he, his two sons and his wife along with other co-villagers are involved in case under Sections 436, 452, 427 etc., IPC for burning the house of the accused and for that he was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. 5. From the testimony of PW1, it appears that he did not make any specific complaint to any of the 5 villagers or Gram Panchayat or to the police officials about the maltreatment or regarding demand of dowry by the accused persons. 6. PW2 Dinesh Kumar in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has also not stated that any complaint of demand of dowry or maltreatment was ever made to the Gram Panchayat or police or any independent person of the locality prior to the death of the deceased/victim. PW2 has also stated in cross- examination that he had seen letter Ex. PA for the first time as it was delivered at his house on 15.7.1997 by the Postman and that letter was handed over by his father/(PW1) to the police after 25 days of the death of victim. 7. Dr. Om Prakash (PW3), running a private clinic at Rehan examined victim on 14.7.1997 at about 10 a.m. in a van. At that time she was unconscious and was referred to Civil Hospital, Nurpur without giving any treatment. PW3 has further stated in cross-examination that victim had been brought to him earlier 2-3 times by the accused persons because victim/deceased was a patient of mental depression as such she was advised to take treatment from Psychiatrist at Pathankot. 6 8. Bhuvenshwar Singh (PW4) took photographs of the dead body of the deceased/victim. Mangal Singh (PW5), H.C. haded over parcel of viscera in a sealed envelope to constable Joginder Singh vide RC No. 127/21 for depositing the same in FSL, Junga. Joginder Singh(PW6) deposited the sealed sample of viscera in FSL, Junga on 5.8.1997. 9. Dr. D.R. Riyal (PW7), who conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the victim/deceased has noted reddish blue mark on the right upper eye lid, 2x1 cm. antimortem red abrasion on the back of left forearm of the deceased and gave opinion that victim had died due to poisoning by aluminum phosphide . PW7 has also opined that two injuries found on the person of the deceased could be possible on account of beatings. Further stated in cross-examination that in opinion Ex. DC he means injury by scuffle or by fall not by mentioning word ‘beating’. 10. Smt. Dano Devi (PW8), the mother of victim in her endeavour to support the prosecution case also did not state that any complaint was ever made to the Panchayat, Police or any of the independent person of the locality prior to the incident took place. Vinod Kumar (PW9), S.I. visited the spot and completed the formalities 7 of the investigation. Jagannath (PW10), SHO has also conducted partial investigation in the case as such they are formal in nature. 11. None of the prosecution witnesses in their endeavours to support the prosecution case gone to prove letter dated 12.7.1997 (Ex. PA) allegedly received on 15.7.1997 and alleged to have been written by victim/deceased to PW1. It has not been compared with the handwritings of victim/deceased. Victim/deceased undisputedly was matriculate and no endeavour was made to compare her writing of her alleged letter Ex. PA with her writings of the school, so much so, no endeavour was made by the Investigating Officer to prove the writing of the victim indicated in the alleged letter by handwriting expert. Surprisingly the letter was not matter of scrutiny or examination and only was presented before the Court. In these circumstances, reliance and credence has rightly not been placed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge on this letter Ex.PA. 12. On analysis of prosecution evidences and materials on record, we find no independent witness has come forward to prove about the maltreatment/harassment or cruelty given to the victim/deceased by the accused persons. In these 8 circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the findings that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused persons. Accordingly criminal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Bail bond furnished by the respondent/accused is discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 27, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), (jai) Judge