HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 448 of 2004 Reserved on: 21.9.2011. Decided on: 30.9.2011 Dewan Chand and others ……… Appellants. Versus State of H.P. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellants: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment, dated 29.4.2004, of the court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., vide which the appellants were held guilty and were convicted and sentenced as under: Section 498-A/34 RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for three months. Section 306/34 RI for 3-1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- , in default of payment of fine, to undergo further SI for six months. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 13.6.2001 at about 11.30 a.m., one Raghuvir Singh telephonically informed the police that Meenu, wife of Sanjay Kumar, who was married two months ago had committed suicide by hanging. On this report, the SHO, alongwith other police officials, proceeded to the spot. On the next date, a written complaint was made by Smt.Salochana Devi, mother of the deceased Meena Kumari, on which a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. After registration of the case, investigation was conducted by the police and after investigation, the challan was filed under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC as well as under Section 302 IPC. However, the Court did not take cognizance under Section 302 IPC, but took cognizance of the offence under the remaining Sections. On consideration, charge under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the appellants, hereinafter also referred to as the accused persons, and they denied the charges. The appellants were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their conviction and sentence, as detailed above. 3. I have heard Mr.N.K. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants, and Mr.J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent and have gone through the record of the case. 4. It may be mentioned herewith that appellant No.2 Sanjay Kumar is the husband of the deceased, while appellant No.1 Dewan Chand is the father-in-law and appellant No.3 Asha Devi is the mother-in-law of the deceased. - 3 - 5. The police set in motion on receipt of information as per the rapat mentioned above and thereafter on the next day, a written complaint was filed by Smt.Salochana Devi, mother of the deceased and the case was registered. A perusal of the complaint Ext.PW-2/B shows that it was alleged therein by the complainant Smt.Salochana Devi that her daughter Meena Kumari had performed court marriage with Sanjay and, as alleged by her, the marriage was performed against their consent. It was alleged in the said complaint that after few days, Sanjay Kumar, his mother and father, namely, all the three appellants, as also sisters-in- law and one Subhash Chand, husband of one of the sisters-in- law, started maltreating the deceased on demand of dowry and cash and that she was beaten also. The next allegation made was that the in-laws of the deceased were not allowing her to come out and that the daughter of the complainant had informed her about it on telephone. She also alleged that a letter was received 10 days ago in which the deceased had alleged that her in-laws were beating her, had put her in a room and were also demanding Kisan Vikas Patra from her worth `40,000/-. Thereafter, she alleged that she received the information on 13.6.2001 on telephone and she went to the Police Station, Nurpur and learnt that her daughter has died. She also alleged that her daughter has been killed by her in- laws by giving her poison and then by throttling her. It is, therefore, clear that in the complaint lodged by her, the complainant had made allegations about demand of money and dowry articles and beatings as against all the three appellants and three other persons, namely, two sisters-in- - 4 - law and one brother-in-law. It was also alleged by the complainant that her elder son Sanjeev Kumar had gone to meet his sister (deceased) one month prior to the occurrence, but he was not permitted by the in-laws of the deceased to meet her and he came back. Another reference was made to a telephone received by her younger son Rajeev Kumar in which the deceased had alleged that her husband, in-laws and two sisters-in-laws gave her beatings and put her in a room for two days and did not provide her meals and also demanded dowry and Kisan Vikas Patra worth `40,000/-. 6. It has to be seen as to whether the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint Ext.PW- 2/B were substantiated by her from her own statement and the statements of her two sons also, while appearing in the witness box, and to what extent these allegations stand corroborated. 7. The first witness in this regard was the complainant herself, namely, Smt.Salochana Devi, who was examined in the Court as PW-2. She has stated that the deceased got married to Sanjay on 5.2.2001, which was a court marriage and it was performed without their permission. She also stated that after the marriage, the deceased never came to their house till her death. She also stated that the deceased used to make telephonic calls to her complaining that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother- in-law Subhash Chand usually maltreated her and gave her beatings on the pretext of not bringing dowry and also did not allow her daughter to go out of their house. Now, in the Court, she has not named that the two sisters-in-law of the - 5 - deceased also used to harass her or give her beatings as alleged in the complaint. 8. PW-2 Salochana Devi has now stated in the Court that the deceased made a telephonic call to her and asked her to meet her as the accused persons were beating her and threatening to kill her. Such allegations were also made in the complaint that the deceased used to give her telephonic calls. She further stated that in the month of May 2001, her daughter had also sent a letter which was received in the month of May, 2001 and she had handed over the same to the police. In the complaint also, this was alleged that a letter was received 10/12 days prior to the lodging of the complaint. The complaint was lodged on 14.6.2001 and as such the letter may have been received in the last week of May or in the first week of June and now she has stated the date as May 2001. In her statement, PW-2 also stated that her elder son Sanjeev had gone to the house of her daughter but the accused persons did not allow her son to meet her. However, her son met with the deceased in a lonely place, where the deceased disclosed that accused are generally beating her on the pretext of not bringing dowry and also asked him that he should inform her mother to see her daughter. In the complaint also, it was alleged that the deceased was not permitted to meet her brother Sanjeev Kumar, though it was not alleged that he talked to her at a secluded place, but it was simply alleged that Sanjeev thereafter came back. 9. In regard to the visit of her second son Rajeev Kumar, PW-2 stated that he was informed by her daughter that the accused persons used to usually beat her - 6 - and had confined her in a room and did not allow her to leave the place. She further stated that they had deposited `40,000/- in the name of the deceased in Kisan Vikas Patra, which accused persons were pressing hard to the deceased to bring that money from her mother and pay it to the accused. She admitted in cross examination that when she was informed by the deceased of her marriage with Sanjay, she told her daughter that she was dead for her and her daughter was also dead for them. She also admitted as correct the suggestion that she informed her daughter that neither she will meet her nor she should try to meet her. She denied the suggestion that the deceased did not talk to her or write any letter to her. She admitted that accused Sanjay was known to them and he used to visit their house and both the families knew each other very well. 10. She also admitted that their relations before the marriage were cordial and she cannot say if the accused are innocent or not. She admitted that she did not mention in the complaint that her son Sanjeev Kumar had a talk with his sister in the kitchen. She admitted that Kisan Vikas Patras were in the name of the deceased and these are lying with her, again stated that they have been spent by her now and the amount has been given by the Post Office authorities. She admitted having gone to the Police Station, Nurpur on the same day i.e. on 13.6.2001, but the police did not register her complaint. 11. PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar, the elder son of the complainant, has stated that his sister had been making telephonic calls to her mother complaining that her father- - 7 - in-law, mother-in-law and her husband used to harass and maltreat her on the pretext of not bringing dowry. He further stated that on 22nd or 23rd May, he went to the house of the accused and the deceased was cleaning the utensils. On seeing him, she embraced him and started weeping. The father-in- law, the mother-in-law and the husband of his deceased sister were present there, but they did not have a talk with him. His sister told him in the kitchen that the accused usually harass and maltreat her for not bringing dowry and also they demand ornaments and `40,000/- which have been deposited in her name and did not allow her to go out of the house. He also stated that the deceased told him that the accused are threatening her to do away with her life and she requested him to inform her mother that she should come to her house and meet her. He further stated that the deceased was having swelling on her face and on enquiry, he was told that the accused had been giving beatings to her for the last 2-3 days and had confined her in a room and did not give her food. He came back and narrated the whole incident to his mother. He also stated that a letter was received by his mother on 29.5.2001 from the deceased. He also reiterated that his mother had told Meena that from the day of her marriage with Sanjay she was dead for them and that she should consider her mother and her family as dead. He also stated that the deceased did not come to their house from the date of her marriage and she was not allowed to come to the house of her mother by the accused. He further stated that the deceased started cooking meals for him but he refused to take it. He did not state to the police about his visit to the kitchen - 8 - for taking water. He stated that he had informed his mother on return from the house of the deceased that there was swelling on the face of his sister. He stated that he had not told the police about the demand of dowry by the accused. He was confronted with his police statement wherein it was not mentioned that the accused demanded ornaments from them. He stated that the Kisan Vikas Patra was in the name of his sister in 1984, which has been encashed by them from the Post Office. The said Kisan Vikas Patra was not produced to the police to show that this was the money deposited in the Post Office in the name of the deceased. He admitted that no complaint was lodged with the police or the Panchayat. 12. PW-4 Rajeev Kumar is the younger son of the complainant, who also stated that the marriage was performed without their permission. He stated that he received telephonic message from his sister 20 days prior to her death about harassment and maltreatment and about beating to her, confining her in a room and that no food was given to her. She also told him that the accused are bent upon to kill her. He admitted that the family of the deceased and the accused are poor and no dowry was given at that time nor it was demanded. He admitted that no report was lodged with the Panchayat or the police about the harassment or dowry demand. He denied his knowledge in case Sanjay accused had an attack of paralysis, lost his job and became unemployed. 13. On appraisal of the statements of these three material witnesses, who are the close relatives of the deceased, it is clear that in the complaint lodged with the police, the allegations were as under: - 9 - (i) The demand of dowry and money; (ii) The deceased was beaten and was not permitted to come out of the house. (iii) A reference was also made to demand of Kisan Vikas Patra of `40,000/-. (iv) The complaint was made on telephone to Rajeev Kumar, younger brother of the deceased, about giving beatings, keeping in a room for two days and demanding dowry and Kisan Vikas Patra. 14. PW-2 Salochana Devi, mother of the deceased and the complainant, has reiterated that the deceased was being maltreated by all the three accused persons and the brother-in-law Subhash Chand and given beatings on the pretext of not bringing dowry and not allowed her to go out of the house. There is no mention as to the demand of any particular item as dowry or as to how much money was demanded. In regard to the demand for money, there is no reference in her statement as PW-2, but there is only reference to not bringing the dowry and as is clear that since the marriage was performed by the deceased out of her own accord, without the consent of the parents, there was no occasion to demand dowry at that time, though it could have been demanded subsequently. But there is no mention of any specific item in her statement or even in the report, she did not state about the demand of `40,000/- lying in deposit in Kisan Vikas Patra, though this was so alleged in the complaint lodged by her but was not so stated in the Court. She also stated in her statement that there was a threat to - 10 - kill the deceased, but it was not so alleged in the complaint. 15. PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar, brother of the deceased, had stated that his sister had been making telephonic calls complaining about the harassment and maltreatment meted out to her by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband, but there was no reference to brother-in-law Subhash Chand, as stated by his mother, or to the sisters-in-law, as alleged in the complaint. He further stated that they used to maltreat and harass the deceased on the pretext of not bringing dowry which was also so stated by his mother as PW- 2, though no specific items were mentioned or any specific demand or the date of demand was mentioned in his statement. He further stated that his sister told him that they usually harass and maltreat her for not bringing the dowry and that they demand ornaments and `40,000/-, which were deposited in her name and did not allow her to go out of the house. He, for the first time, stated about the demand of any gold ornaments, which was not stated by his mother as PW-2 or alleged in the complaint. There were general allegations in regard to harassment and maltreatment and demand of `40,000/- deposited in the name of the deceased, about which PW-2 Salochana Devi has not stated anything. 16. PW-2 Salochana Devi has not stated that PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar had gone to meet his sister and she complained about maltreatment, demand of ornaments and `40,000/-. However, she stated that the accused generally beat the deceased on the pretext of not bringing dowry, but there was no mention of any demand of ornaments or `40,000/- deposited - 11 - in her name or the threat given to the deceased to do away with her life, as stated by PW-3. In her further statement, she stated that `40,000/- were being demanded which were in the name of her daughter, but no proof has been placed on record to show that there was any Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of the deceased or as to when they were got encashed and by whom and as to whether, in fact, the money was lying in deposit in the Kisan Vikas Patra or not. 17. PW-4 Rajeev Kumar, the brother of the deceased, had stated about the telephonic message and has stated in regard to harassment, maltreatment and beatings given to her and that she was not given food and was not allowed to come outside the house. He also stated that the accused were bent upon to kill her as told by his sister, who requested her mother to come and meet her. He did not state about the beatings as to by whom these were given and as to when these were given. In regard to the statement of PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar that he observed swelling on the face of the deceased that she had been given beating for the last 2-3 days, it was not substantiated by PW-2 Salochana Devi that her son, on return, had informed her that there was swelling on the face of his sister. 18. Thus, it is clear from the above discussion of the evidence that there is no evidence on record to show about the demand of any particular item or money and all the witnesses are not consistent on this count, except general allegations that there was maltreatment and beating, but by whom, it was not substantiated by her brothers. In regard to the swelling on the face, there is statement of PW-3 Sanjeev - 12 - Kumar that he observed so but there is nothing that he told about it to his mother PW-2 Salochana Devi or his younger brother, which could substantiate his statement in this regard. 19. In regard to the fact that the deceased was kept confined in the room, the statement of PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar is clear that his sister was preparing meals for him but he refused to take it. PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar had stated that he had told his mother that there was swelling on the face of the deceased, but there is no mention in the statement of PW-2 Salochana Devi in this regard. He also admitted that he had stated about the demand of dowry by the accused in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or demand of ornaments but this was not so mentioned in the police statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. with which he was confronted. 20. Apart from the above testimony of the close relatives of the deceased, the prosecution has strongly relied upon the letter Ext.P-8 allegedly written by the deceased to her mother some days prior to her death. The pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellants against the said letter was that this was not taken in possession by the police immediately on the date i.e. on 14.6.2001 when the report was lodged by the complainant but was taken in possession after many days, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants. PW-2 Salochana Devi has not stated anything in regard to the date when the letter was taken in possession. However, the recovery memo Ext.PW-2/A has been proved on record, which shows that this letter was - 13 - taken in possession on 14.6.2001. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants since the letter was in possession of the complainant on 14.6.2001, on which date she made allegations in regard to the letter also, and the same was taken in possession. Therefore, there is nothing to doubt the genuineness of the letter in question. 21. Another plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the letter was forged one and the handwriting of the other two brothers of the deceased was similar and as such cannot be relied upon. A perusal of the cross examination of these three material witnesses shows that the letter had been identified by PW-2 Salochana Devi and PW-3 Sanjeev Kumar to be in the handwriting of the deceased. No specific questions were put up to these witnesses as to how they could identify the handwriting and signatures of the deceased since nothing was brought on the record to show that the deceased had ever written to her mother prior to her death or she had gone out of her village and, therefore, these two persons were conversant with the handwriting and the signatures of the deceased. In the absence of such questions having been put up and no challenge has been laid to the manner in which the handwriting of the deceased was identified by her mother and brother, there is nothing to doubt the genuineness of the said letter, though it would have been more appropriate in case the police had taken in possession some admitted handwriting and signatures of the deceased, if available, and these should have been got compared with the letter in question. However, this in itself - 14 - is no ground to disbelieve the letter since the mother of the deceased had no opportunity or time to forge this letter, which was given to the police on the next date itself when the report was lodged and it bears the Post Office seal of Nagrota Bagwan for the date 29.5.2001, which is similar to the time stated by the complainant in the report and is addressed to the complainant by name and there is nothing to doubt the genuineness of the letter in question, which is not a handwriting on a plain paper, but on the In-Land itself. In the absence of comparison, this letter in itself cannot be said to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons, but it could be used for corroborative purposes. 22. Coming to the contents of the letter written by the deceased Meena Kumari, it was alleged in the letter that she has wept four lac times in the four months and she is in bad condition and she should come at least once to see her. She further alleged that the God has been cruel to her and everything told by her mother has come in her front. She further alleged that they are not allowing her to talk on phone. She further alleged that her husband had stated that she will not be allowed to go to her house or to the God easily. She had further alleged that she was not having any bangles or ear rings and she is taunted in the name of her parents. She further written in the letter that she was given beatings 5-7 times by him (meaning thereby the reference is to the husband). She further alleged that she was writing this letter