IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. : 48 of 2002 Decided on : 31.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh … Appellant. Versus Hem Raj and others … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Inder Mohan, Advocate, vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, Judge (oral). The present appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) Cr. P.C in reference to the impugned judgment dated 25.8.2001, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, H.P, in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 2000, acquitting the accused- respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC, in reference to Case FIR No. 21/98. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution case is that Poonam Rani, daughter of Sukh Pal was married to accused Hem Raj on 25.4.97 as per Hindu rites, had however committed suicide on 7.2.98 at the house of her in-laws at village Saloh Beri, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una, by consuming poisonous tablets of aluminum phosphide and as per the complaint lodged by Sukh Pal, the father of the victim-deceased, accused-respondents had been maltreating and beating the victim-deceased for bringing inadequate dowry and for this reason victim-deceased was being ignored by her husband. After completion of investigation, accused were charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses, whereas, the accused- respondents through their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C have denied the prosecution case. 4. Dr. Ashish Lekhi PW-11 has examined the victim- deceased Poonam Rani on 17.2.1998 and stated that statement Ex.PW-11/C was recorded in his presence and her thumb impression was obtained on the same. As per Ex.PW-11/C victim-deceased stated that she consumed poison at her own will as she did not want to live any more. PW-1 Dr. S.K. Nanda after examining the victim-deceased on 18.2.1998, had not noticed any external mark of injury on her person. PW-2 Sukh Pal, the father of the victim-deceased in his endeavour to 3 support the prosecution case has stated that after the marriage, whenever, his daughter Poonam Rani came to his house, she appeared sad, in sad mood and restless and on enquiry she used to reply that since her parents had not given a gold ring to her husband/Hem Raj in the marriage, as such her husband maltreats her. PW-2 further stated that the victim-deceased told him that her father-in-law Rattan Chand also passes taunts that she has brought insufficient dowry and whenever his daughter used to visit his house accused/Naresh Kumari (sister of Hem Raj) accompanied her as body guard and did not allow his daughter to talk with him freely. PW-2 Sukh Pal took victim-deceased to his house with the intention that she will stay there for 6-7 days, but on the next day accused Hem Raj came and took his daughter back. However, no body from the family of the matrimonial house of the victim-deceased informed about her death. It was only the police which informed him on 17.2.1998 at about 8.30 PM about the death of the victim-deceased. PW-2 doubted that his daughter has committed suicide on account of maltreatment given by the accused Naresh Kumari, husband Hem Raj and father-in-law Rattan Chand. As per the testimony of PW-2 made in the cross examination, before marriage of victim, it was settled between PW-2 and father of accused Hem Raj that no dowry would be given or taken and on this 4 understanding the marriage was solemnized and only small dowry was given. After marriage his daughter also came with her husband to participate in a few marriages and his daughter knew writing letters, however, no letter was ever written by her regarding giving of less dowry and about the demand of gold ring. PW-2 has further stated in cross examination that as per Ex.PW-2/A, his daughter might have taken poison because of taunts made over to her. As per testimony of PW-2 financial position of the accused person is good. 5. PW-3 Kaushalya Devi, the mother of the victim- deceased in her endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that, whenever, the victim-deceased came to her house, she used to weep and on enquiry she told that she was being maltreated and taunted by accused Hem Raj, Narsh Kumari and Rattan Chand. As per the testimony of PW-3, the victim-deceased used to state that she had not been given any fridge, cooler, almirah etc. in the marriage and due to the aforesaid reasons the above mentioned persons used to tease her. As per the testimony of PW-3 the victim-deceased used to tell her that she was taunted by the accused persons. In cross examination on a suggestion PW-3 stated that her daughter was given taunting for not giving gold ring. As per the testimony of PW-3 made in cross examination her daughter had gone with the accused to Ludhiana where she 5 stayed for 2-3 months and after the marriage of the victim- deceased, 2-3 marriages were solemnized, in which she was accompanied by Hem Raj accused. As per the testimony of Pw-3, her daughter used to write letters, but that letters are not traceable. 6. PW-4 Pawan Kumar, Up-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, who was given information on 18.2.1998 by Sukh Pal PW-2 that her daughter has consumed poison and had died. PW-5 Kashmir Singh, Dy.SP Enforcement after investigation prepared the challan. PW-6 SI Kailash Walia lodged FIR on 18.2.1998. PW-7 HC Sher Bahadur, PW-8 HC Lal Chand, PW-9 HC Manohar Lal, PW-10 ASI Prem Chand official witnesses have supported the prosecution case to the extent the role assigned to them. PW-11 Dr. Ashish Lekhi, recorded dying declaration Ex.PW-11/C. PW-12 ASI Daya Sagar investigated the case and endeavoured to support the prosecution case. 7. On analysis of materials on record and prosecution witnesses, we notice that mark A, B, C, D and E are letters written by the victim-deceased to her husband Hem Raj. In none of these letters there was any complaint regarding the demand of dowry or maltreatment. The only grievance of the victim-deceased was aloofness and she had been always inviting her husband time and again by saying 6 that if her husband will not come she may die. No other grievance of any kind was indicated in these letters even regarding taunt or demand of dowry by the parents in law of the victim-deceased. Dying declaration Ex.PW-11/C also reveals that she does not want to live and such proclamation of the victim-deceased is in consonance to her repeated writing of letters to her husband that if her husband will not come to take her with him she may die. None of the prosecution witnesses have come forward to indicate that she had ever written any letter to any of the prosecution witnesses informing about the maltreatment or beatings or demanding of dowry. No report was ever made to the Gram Panchayat or police regarding maltreatment or demand of dowry. PW-2 Sukh Pal has stated that her daughter/(victim-deceased) had been complaining that he had not given gold ring to her husband in the marriage, therefore, accused Hem Raj maltreated her. Whereas, contrary to such testimony, PW-3 Kaushliya Devi has stated that, whenever, victim-deceased used to come to the house of PW-3, she used to weep and on enquiry she told that she was being maltreated and taunted by accused Hem Raj, Naresh Kumari and Rattan Chand, i.e by her husband, sister-in- law and father-in-law, respectively, for not giving fridge, cooler and almirah etc. in the marriage. There had been 7 apparent contradictions in the testimonies of PWs 2 and 3 regarding demand of dowry. 8. In our considered view, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand of dowry by the parents in law of the victim-deceased. Dying declaration Ext.PW-11/C witnessed by PW-11 Dr. Ashish Lekhi reveals that she did not wish to live any more as she wanted to die at her own sweet will. On analysis of the materials on record, we notice that the husband of the victim-deceased had not been keeping the victim-deceased with him and on repeated invitations and calling, the husband had not been visiting home and the victim-deceased was living in aloofness, always in quest of company of her husband, but that cannot be said to be an inducement for instigating the victim-deceased to commit suicide. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of materials on record the learned Addl. Sessions judge has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt 8 to the accused. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 31, 2011. (lsp)