IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 346/1997. Date of Decision : April 9,2010. State of H.P. Appellant. Versus Babu Ram and others. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellant Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents Babu Ram, Smt.Shanti Devi and Smt. Satya Devi, the husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased Smt. Meena. The respondents herein were the accused before learned Sessions Court and were charged for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that after the marriage between Babu Ram and deceased Smt. Meena had been solemnized, he used to harass her. Similar allegations 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 were made against Smt.Shanti Devi and Smt Satya Devi. In nutshell, the case put forth was that the deceased was asked to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her mother PW-1 Smt. Balbir Kaur. On 5.8.1995 at about 7 p.m. when the deceased was working in the kitchen of the house in village Jobbi, Police Station, Ramshehar,Tehsil Nalagarh District Solan, her clothes caught fire and she sustained third degree burns. Her husband Babu Ram and Mast Ram brother-in-law of the deceased extinguished the fire and thereafter, Dr. Krishan Pal was brought to the house for providing medical aid to the deceased. On the next day i.e. 6th August, 1995, she was taken to Bilaspur Government Hospital, where they reached at about 9.30 a.m. After a short span of time, Smt.Meena died. In the meantime, Sh. Mahabir Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Incharge, Police Post, Bilaspur sent a note to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Shehar informing about the death of Smt. Meena. He had expressed grave doubt about the manner in which the deceased had died opining that it was probably because of suicide. F.I.R. No. 51 of 1995 was registered against all the accused. Thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The evidence of PW-1 Smt. Balbir Kaur, the mother of the deceased, is that a demand of Rs.25,000/- has been made on the pretext that the accused wanted to buy a buffalow. PW-2 Sh.Balbinder Singh, brother of the deceased states in his evidence that when his sister was married, she had been 3 provided all the utensils etc. and that she had expressed her desire to purchase a buffalo. There is no other evidence on the record which would show that any purported demand for dowry etc. was made. The learned Sessions Judge, on conspectus of the entire evidence on record, more especially PW-3 Sh. Anant Ram, who was the witness to the inquest report, PW-7 Sh. Baldev, who was performing ‘Hawan’ in the neighbouring house and had reached the spot on hearing cries of the deceased and saw the flames on the clothes being extinguished by the husband, PW-9 Sh.Mast Ram, who was the driver of truck No. HIB-977 in which the deceased was carried from the village to the hospital, concluded that no offence against the accused had been made out. The learned Court below further places reliance on the inquest report (Ext.PW-3/A) which did not record any suspicious circumstance pointing towards the guilt of the accused, acquitted all the accused. The State is now in appeal. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the judgment of the court below cannot be sustained as the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is clear and categorical stating that the deceased was being harassed by the accused as she was being forced to bring dowry and for this reason she was forced to commit suicide. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record. 4 The submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted. The statement of PW-1 and PW-2 does not establish any demand for dowry as rightly held by the learned court below. It is true that the deceased died because of burn injuries but the other evidence on the record clearly points out towards the innocence of the accused, more especially the evidence of PW-7 Baldev Singh son of Sh. Anant Ram. He states that on the fateful day, he had gone to performing the ‘Hawan’ in the house of Mast Ram the brother of accused Babu Ram and at around 4 p.m. in the evening when he completed the ‘Hawan’, he heard a noise from the house of accused Babu Ram, who was raising an alarm and shouting that his house had caught fire. He along with other persons reached the spot and found that smoke was coming out from the room which had been bolted from inside. It was pushed forcefully and broken open and when all of them entered the room, they saw that the deceased ablaze and started crying to the persons so that they should save her. In cross-examination, she stated that she had committed a mistake and was crying for medical aid. PW-9 Mast Ram is the driver of truck No.HIB-977 in which he carried the deceased to the hospital for medical treatment. The other witnesses in no manner state a single word with respect to the commission of the offence by the accused. We hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the testimony of Balbir Kaur (PW-1) on the so-called demand of dowry which was an after thought and no demand was made by 5 accused Babu Ram. Even if we re-assess the entire evidence, we are unable to find anything in the statements of both PW- 1 and PW-2 which establishes either a demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased. We, thus, find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. (Kuldip Singh), Judge. April 9,2010(R)