IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 297 of 1995 Date of Decision : February 22, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A. G. For the respondent : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Harmeet Singh, Advocate Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 8-N/7 of 1992 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H. P. whereby the accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC. The undisputed facts are that one Gulsaina (deceased) was married to accused Mohd. Iqbal. The marriage took place some time in the year 1986-87. However, the bride 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 did not go to her husband’s home after the marriage and the ‘MAKLAWA’ (the ceremony where the wife actually goes to her husband’s house) took place some time towards the end of 1990. Smt. Gulsaina committed suicide by hanging herself from a guava tree on the night intervening 10.11.1990 & 11.11.1990 at about 1.00 a.m. in the morning. The prosecution version is that the deceased was forced to commit suicide because of the demands of dowry raised by the in-laws of the deceased and also on account of the fact that accused Lal Din (father-in-law of the deceased) had tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter-in-law (deceased) and when Gulsaina complained about this to her neighbours, her husband Mohmad Iqbal first threatened and finally divorced her by uttering three times the words ‘TALAK, TALAK, TALAK’ in the night intervening 10.11.1990 & 11.11.1990. After investigation challan was filed and the accused sent up to face trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that essential ingredients of Section 304-B had not been satisfied and the prosecution has failed to prove that any dowry was demanded. It also held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused Lal Din had tried to molest his daughter. Aggrieved by this judgment, the State has filed the present appeal. 3 We have heard Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh and Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. There are two sets of witnesses in this case. PW-5 Shri Rafiq is the uncle (father’s elder brother) of the deceased. PW-6 Mohd. Sharif is the father of the deceased. According to the testimony of these two witnesses, the accused persons had been making demands for dowry and had demanded double bed, Fridge, Motorcycle, Television etc. as dowry. According to them, the deceased had complained to them that she was being teased and harassed for not bringing adequate dowry. The independent witnesses i.e PW-1 Darshan Singh and his wife PW-7 Smt. Amarjeet Kaur have not supported these two witnesses on this aspect of the case at all. According to the father and uncle of the deceased after 3-4 months of the ‘MAKLAWA’ ceremony, PW-7 Amarjeet Kaur told him that in-laws of the deceased are demanding dowry. However, according to PW-7 she never imparted such information to PW-5. According to PW-5 & PW-6, one day prior to the sad event when Gulsaina committed suicide, she met her father and complained to him about the maltreatment being meted out to her by her in-laws. He then took his daughter to his elder brother PW-5 who was working as Mistery in a flour mill at Badripur. There again the deceased is reported to have 4 complained to her uncle about the maltreatment meted out to her. According to these two witnesses, one Sikh gentleman Shri Balbir Singh was present at the relevant time. In fact this gentleman offered to mediate between the parties and states that he would make an attempt to get the dispute settled. The girl was asked to go back to her marital home. She at first did not agree and insisted that some members of the Panchayat should be sent along with her. However, later she went to her in- laws house. Surprisingly, though Balbir Singh was cited as a prosecution witness and was a very important witness for the prosecution, he was given up and never examined in Court. There are various improvements in the statements of PW-5 & PW-6 as compared to the first statements made by them to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the statements of these two witnesses Ext.DA & Ext.DB respectively, though there are general allegations that dowry was being demanded, no specific instances of such demands were given. The instances were only detailed during the testimony recorded in Court. The witnesses were confronted with their earlier statements i.e. Ext.DA & Ext.DB in which no such incidents were mentioned. According to the witnesses they had informed the police about the various earlier instances when dowry was demanded but these do not find mention in the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Investigating Officer states that he had recorded 5 these statements, Ext.DA & Ext.DB, as per the deposition of the witnesses. This also casts a doubt on the prosecution version. According to PW-5 & PW-6 the first demand of dowry was made 3-4 months after the MAKLAWA ceremony. Thereafter on repeated occasions the mother-in-law of the deceased made demands for the items of dowry. According to these witnesses these demands were being made repeatedly. If that was true, then the parents of the deceased would have complained to the members of the Community or to the panchayat. It may be that the parents of a girl on the first or second occasion may not complain to other members of the society with a view to keep the matter hidden, but when repeated demands are made and the young daughter harassed for not bringing sufficient dowry and a period of 8 months has elapsed then in the course of normal behaviour one would expect that some unofficial complaint at least would have been made to some person who could have mediated between the parties. Therefore, the learned trial Court was right in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had ever demanded dowry from the deceased or her family members. We now take up the next allegation as to whether false allegations of immorality were levelled against the deceased which led her to commit suicide. PW-7 Amarjeet Kaur states that 5 days prior to the suicide when the village women were collecting water at the common village tap, the deceased had told them that her father-in-law had tried to outrage her 6 modesty. Her husband PW-1 states that his wife PW-7 never told him about such incident. Admittedly, the deceased Gulsaina met her father and uncle one day prior to the incident. PW-5 in his examination-in-chief has not stated a word of any complaint being made by the deceased about such immoral act of the father-in-law. It is true that in cross-examination he states that he had disclosed to the Investigating Officer that the deceased had complained to him with regard to the immoral activities of her father-in-law. He was confronted with his statement Ext.DA where no such statement was recorded. Surprisingly, though the uncle PW-5 does make reference to the immoral act on the part of the father-in-law, the father PW-6 does not even whisper a word in this regard. If this allegation was true then any girl before complaining of such a serious immoral conduct by her father-in-law would have told her father before committing suicide. According to these witnesses, the deceased complained to them in the presence of Shri Balbir Singh who was not cross- examined. PW-6 does not say a word in this behalf. PW-5 is silent in his examination-in- chief but only in cross-examination make a guarded allegation in this regard. Even as per the prosecution and as admitted by the defence, the deceased had made some allegations against her father-in-law. Even if the statement of PW-5 is to be believed, this incident happened 5-6 days before the suicide. Thereafter the deceased left the house of her in-laws and her husband divorced her on the night intervening 9.11.1990 & 10.11.1990. Therefore, it may be the 7 last act of getting divorced which may have compelled her to commit suicide. It cannot be said with certainty that the father- in-law committed any immoral act on her or that such act compelled her to commit suicide. In view of above discussion we are of the clear view that the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. We find no reason to interfere in the said judgment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. February 22, 2010. (rana)