IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 214 of 1994 Reserved on: 21.8.2008 Date of decision: 27.08.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Devi Ram and Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 30.11.1993, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that deceased Vidya Devi was the wife of respondent No. 3. Smt. Premi Devi, complainant, is the real sister of deceased and is married to elder brother of respondent Sat Prakash, who made a statement before the police that on the previous day on 5.1.1992, her elder sister Vidya Devi 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 made a complaint to her that her husband respondent No. 3, her mother-in-law and father-in-law, respondents, give her beatings and maltreat her on the ground that she was of black colour. The deceased further told her that she will die and went out on the pretext of urinating and took something from a bottle and she went there but found that she was not responding and then informed the respondents who brought her to the house. It was alleged that the deceased had committed suicide because of the maltreatment and beatings given to her by the respondents. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the trial Court who tried the respondents under the above Sections leading to their acquittal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant were that the prosecution had examined many witnesses including the relatives of the deceased who have stated about the maltreatment and there was sufficient evidence on record to show that the deceased was being maltreated and being fed up of maltreatment and beatings given to her, the deceased committed suicide and as such, the respondents are liable for abetment of suicide. Therefore, the findings of learned trial Court to the contrary which are perverse, are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded therein. 3 The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the deceased has committed suicide which fact stands established from the postmortem report Ext.PW7/A proved in evidence as well as the report of the Chemical Examiner, which proves that the cause of death was because of the presence of omni phosphorous contents in the body of the deceased as per the report of the Chemical Examiner. This fact was not disputed that the deceased died in the house of her in-laws because of consuming of poison and as such, this fact stands established that the deceased committed suicide. Insofar as the charge under Section 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. is concerned, the learned trial Court had held that this charge was not proved, which findings have not been challenged before us during the course of arguments. The only question left for consideration is as to whether the respondents had abetted the commission of the offence of suicide by the deceased. The evidence led by the prosecution has to be appreciated which has also been discussed by the learned trial Court. Coming to the evidence, PW-1 Premi Devi, sister of the deceased, who is also married to the elder brother of her sister’s husband, has stated that her sister was not being treated well by the respondents since she was having a dark complexion. She further stated that she was being given beatings by her husband and her parents-in-law were also not treating her sister properly. Her sister was given a separate room without proper bedding and she was not allowed to cook. Due to all this treatment being meted out to the deceased, she was feeling dejected and she was not having desire to live. She further stated that on the day of the occurrence in the morning, she was informed by 4 Vidya when they were in the Ghasni that on the previous night she was given beatings by her husband and parents-in-law. Her sister had cried a lot at that time. She did not state that she was present in the house on the previous night or not and as to how she had not heard the cries of her sister when she was given beatings by the respondents. She clearly stated that she had been living alongwith her sister in the same house with their husbands and in-laws. She also admitted that she had never been ill treated or given beatings either by her husband or by her parents-in-law or brother-in-law. She denied the suggestion that her sister wanted to live separately and had been insisting upon her husband to claim a share in the property and live separately. PW-2 Mast Ram is the father of the deceased, who has stated that the respondents had been giving cruel treatment to his daughter. A Panchayat was called and a report Ext. PW2/A was made to the police and then written compromise Ext. PW2/B was recorded which was signed by him also. He admitted that the compromise Ext.PW2/A was scribed by a police constable. At the time of compromise, the deceased was not present. He also denied the suggestion that his daughter wanted that her husband should live separately from his parents. PW-3 Mansha Ram has stated that on the night of 4.1.1992, when the deceased stayed there, he was staying in the house of one Sita Ram and heard the sound of shouting coming from the house of the in-laws of Premi Devi and Vidya Devi. He stated that both these girls were being rebuked by their respective husbands, while PW-1 Premi Devi has clearly stated that she was never maltreated by her 5 husband. PW-3 even stated in his cross-examination that the injections were prescribed by the Doctors at Shimla which had to be brought from Chandigarh, which were brought by the respondents and till that time, the deceased was alive. This shows that efforts were made to save the deceased and he stated that no quarrel had taken place in between the deceased and her husband in his presence. The said Sita Ram in whose house this witness has stayed, has been examined as PW-8 who stated that his house is adjacent to the house of accused persons, but he never stated that he heard any shouts of quarrel on the night before the day Smt. Vidya Devi took poison and he nowhere stated that this witness had stayed in his house on that night. He has stated about the compromise that it was got arrived at by H.C. Hukam Singh under a threat and accused Sat Prakash was publicly reprimanded and was made to beg an apology from all those present. He clearly stated that all the three accused persons have never given beatings or treated the deceased with cruelty at any time after the marriage. This is contrary to the version of PW-3 Mansha Ram who appears to be a procured witness. PW-4 Yangian Singh, uncle of the deceased, has stated in general that Vidya Devi had complained to him 5-6 months after marriage that she was being given beatings by the three accused for the reasons of dark complexion. He also stated about the compromise Ext. PW2/A. PW-5 Mohi Ram’s evidence is hear say evidence and is not relevant. The statements of other witnesses are not very material. From above discussion, it is clear that evidence led to prove maltreatment or beatings by the respondents is neither specific, 6 nor it proves about any particular occurrence when the deceased was given beatings by the respondents and the matter was reported to the police or the family members of the deceased. The evidence led, therefore, does not prove that the respondents had been maltreating the deceased or giving her beatings. The evidence led only suggests about the maltreatment but does not prove that any maltreatment was meted out to the deceased or she was given beatings at any time. In regard to the occurrence one day prior to the death of deceased, PW-3 Mansha Ram has been examined who held as above appears to be procured witness and does not substantiate the story regarding beatings given one day earlier. The statement of sister of deceased Premi Devi as PW-1 also does not inspire confidence as discussed above. To prove a charge under Section 306 I.P.C., it has to be proved that the accused persons did some act which can said to be amounting to abetment of the suicide by the deceased. To prove this, it has to be proved that there was some immediate provocation or maltreatment that the deceased was compelled to commit suicide which evidence is lacking in the case. The mere fact that the deceased committed suicide in the house of her in-laws is not sufficient to prove that they had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The learned trial Court had referred to the testimony of the witnesses in this regard and had rightly concluded that the charge under Section 306 I.P.C. was not proved which findings cannot be said to be perverse in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. Those findings, therefore, do not call for an interference by this Court. 7 We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged forthwith. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ) August 27, 2008 Judge (BSS) 8