1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 243 of 1994 Date of decision: 09.04.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. -vs- Sukhdev Singh Respondent. __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant : Mr. Rejinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr.R.P. Singh, Advocate . _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondent, who was tried for offences under Section 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. Therefore, it has filed the present appeal. Case of the prosecution is like this: Deceased Nirmala Devi and her sister Kalan Devi (DW1) were married to two brothers in the year 1988. Deceased was married to respondent Sukhdev Singh while Kalan Devi was married to Sarwan, a brother of the respondent. Respondent allegedly started mal-treating the deceased and would even subject her to physical torture on account of her having not brought sufficient dowry. He started demanding either a sum of rupees 10,000/- in cash or a television set, a radio and a wrist watch. The deceased used to complain to her parents about the alleged demand by the respondent. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 On 22.4.90 ceremonies in connection with the marriage of a son of one Tulsi Ram started in the village of the respondent. Tulsi Ram is related to the father of the deceased. Therefore, the father of the deceased Nikka Ram (PW4) accompanied by his brother Lehru Ram (PW8) and a daughter named Savitri Devi (PW14) and some other persons from their family attended the marriage. Marriage party went to the bride’s place on 22.4.1990 and returned with the bride on the next following day, i.e, 23-4-1990. In the evening, deceased Nirmala and her sister Kalan Devi, married to a brother of the respondent, took their meals at the place of said Tulsi Ram and returned to their house. On reaching home, the deceased was allegedly beaten up by the respondent, on the pretext that she had not cared to fetch water from the water tap, on account of which there was no water in the house. Kalan Devi and Savitri Devi (PW14) then went to the water source and brought some water. On 24- 4-1990, Nikka Ram (PW4), the father of the deceased, accompanied by his brother Lehru Ram (PW8) and daughter Savitri Devi (PW14) returned to his village early in the morning. He reached his house in village Amarpur around 9.00 a.m. in the morning. Ten-fifteen minutes later, Ram Lal, younger brother of the respondent, arrived at the house of Nikka Ram (PW4) and told that the deceased had been missing since the previous evening. Nikka Ram expressed the apprehension that she might have been killed by her in-laws and told him that it was their responsibility to search for her. On 27-4-1990 at 11.00 P.M, dead body of the deceased was spotted on the side of Govind Sagar Lake at a place called “Gori Khud”. Post-mortem was conducted by PW9 Dr. D.R. Sehgal. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner. On seeing the report of the Chemical Examiner Exhibit PW9/C, Dr. D.R. Sehgal (PW9) gave the opinion that the death could have been due to drowning. 3 Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution which consists of the statements of the father, the mother, a sister, an uncle and a brother of the deceased does not inspire confidence because there are in-consistencies, contradictions and discrepancies in their testimonies, some of which are so major that they render the entire evidence inherently untrue. We have gone through the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned defense counsel. It is the prosecution’s own case that the deceased had gone missing on 23-4-1990 or at the most on 24-4-1990 and they came to know about her having dis-appeared on 24.4.1990 itself around 9.00 a.m. It is also the case of the prosecution that on the evening of 23-4-1990, the deceased was beaten up by the respondent on the pretext that there was no water in the house and she had not cared to fetch the same from the village tap. The father of the deceased inspite of his having come to know that the deceased was missing, did not lodge any report with the Police. He lodged the report only on 29.4.1990, after the dead- body had been recovered and the post mortem conducted and in the said report, which is Exhibit-PA, not only that he did not make any specific allegation of demand of dowry but he also did not get recorded that the deceased had been beaten-up on the evening of 23-4-1990, on the pretext that she had not done the job of fetching water. Now when the alleged incident of beating of the deceased had taken place on 23.4.1990, allegedly in the presence of Savitri Devi (PW14), a daughter of Nikka Ram (PW4) and on 24-4-1990 it was reported to PW4 Nikka Ram that the deceased had been missing, it cannot be believed that Savitri Devi (PW14) might not have apprised PW4 about the alleged beating of the deceased had it been a fact. Omission in the earliest 4 version, Exhibit-PA, of this fact, suggests that PW4 Nikka Ram was not apprised of any beating by PW14 Savtri Devi. The conduct of Savitri Devi (PW14) in not informing her father about the alleged beating even after it came to notice that the deceased had been missing, suggests that no such incident had taken place. The story regarding the beatings given to the deceased on 23-4- 1990 in the evening is further proved to be false by the testimony of Lehru Ram (PW8). This witness has stated that after taking their meals, the deceased and her sister Kalan Devi, married to a brother of the respondent, left for their house, around 6.00 P.M, but Savitri Devi and other girls remained at Tulsi Ram’s place, meaning thereby that Savitri Devi (PW14) did not accompany the deceased when she and Kalan Devi after taking their meals went to their house. Savitri Devi says that she also went with them and that when they reached the place of the respondent at about 6.00 P.M, the respondent gave beatings to the deceased. Lehru Ram (PW8) has very specifically stated that Savitri Devi went to the house of the deceased and the respondent from the house where the marriage function was going-on at 7.00 P.M. That means Savitri Devi’s testimony that the respondent gave beating to the deceased at 6.00 P.M. is incorrect. Allegation regarding demand of dowry also appears to be a cooked-up one. In the earliest version given to the Police by Nikka Ram (PW4) vide statement Exhibit-PA, there is no mention that the deceased ever demanded an amount of rupees 10,000/- or a television set, a wrist watch and a radio. What is written in the statement Exhibit-PA is that he used to give beatings to the deceased on account of dowry custom (Dahej Pratha). Now if the allegation regarding demand of television set, a wrist watch and a radio or a sum of rupees 10,000/- in cash in lieu 5 thereof were a fact, it must have found mention in Exhibit-PA, the earliest version which was given to the Police. It may not be out of place to state that the deceased went missing on 23-4-1990 or 24-4-1990 and Nikka Ram (PW4) came to know about the same on 24-4-1990 itself and the earliest version was given by him to the Police five days later, i.e, on 29.4.1990 but still, there is no mention in the said version about the demand of specific articles on account of dowry or a sum of rupees 10,000/- in cash in lieu of such articles. It is there in the evidence of the prosecution itself that on the night intervening 23-4-1990 and 24-4-1990, not only that Savitri Devi (PW14), a sister of the deceased but also her father Nikka Ram (PW4) and her father’s brother Lehru Ram (PW8) were present at the house of the respondent and stayed there. Neither Nikka Ram (PW4) nor Lehru Ram (PW8) stated that they heard anything about the alleged beating of the deceased by the respondent when they were at the latter’s place. DW1 Kalan Devi, the sister of the deceased, who is married to a brother of the respondent and had been living in the same house as the deceased and the respondent, testified that no demand for dowry was ever made by the respondent nor did he ever give beating to the deceased. In view of the above stated position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. April 9, 2008. (bm) 6 7