1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 514 of 2001 Decided on May 5, 2011 ________________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Kuldeep Singh & Another ...Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl.Advocate General, with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, vice counsel. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. (oral) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 16.8.1999, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 15.6.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Una, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000, titled as State of H.P. vs. Kuldeep Singh & Another, accused stand acquitted of the charged offences. 2. According to Mr.Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel for accused Kuldeep Singh, (accused No.1) has expired on 19.3.2009. He has produced his Death Certificate in Court, which is taken on record. Consequently, the appeal qua accused No.1 stands abated. 2 3. Undisputedly Kanta Devi (Accused No.2) is the sister-in-law (elder brother's wife) of accused No.1. 4. As per the case of the prosecution, Sunita Devi was married to Kuldeep Singh, sometime in the year 1989. From the wedlock she had three children. Accused used to harass Sunita Devi for not doing her daily chores properly. Sometime in the year 1994, Sunita Devi left her matrimonial house due to various acts of alleged cruelty and harassment meted out the accused. However, with the intervention of the Pradhan of the Panchayat, compromise (Ex.PF) dated 12.7.1994 was entered into between the deceased and accused Kuldeep Singh. Resultantly, Sunita Devi returned back to her matrimonial house subject to the condition agreed upon by accused Kuldeep Singh. In spite of the compromise, accused persons continued with their atrocities which prompted Sunita Devi to consume poison (tablets of aluminium phosphide) in the night intervening 16 and 17.8.1999. She was taken to the hospital at Nehrian by both the accused. They informed Tilak Raj (PW.3), brother of the deceased, who also accompanied them. From Nehrian, deceased was directed to be shifted to the Government Hospital at Amb, Districti Una. However, before she could be admitted into the hospital, Sunita Devi died. Rakesh Thakur (PW.2), another brother of the deceased learnt about the incident and telephonically informed the police and upon reaching Una from Chandigarh, got his statement (Ex.PE) recorded on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PK) dated 17.8.1999, 3 under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC, was registered with Police Station, Amb. The police prepared the inquest report, got postmortem (Ex.PB) conducted on the dead body and recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses. The report (Ex.PB) of the Chemical Examiner was obtained. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 5. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A both read with Section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. 7. After careful scrutiny of the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences, hence the present appeal. 8. The scope of the appeal is narrow. It is to be seen as to whether prosecution has been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt and complicity of accused No.2 to the alleged crime, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. 9. Out of 10 prosecution witnesses, relevant testimonies are only that of Rakesh Thakur (PW.2) and Tilak Raj (PW.3) both brothers of deceased, Kumari Meenakshi, (PW.4) daughter of the deceased and Smt.Rajeshwari Devi (PW.9) 4 Pradhan of the area. 10. In the deposition of PW.9, there is no whisper about the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment on the part of accused Kanta Devi. This witness simply states that deceased used to tell her that accused used to make demands for money. According to her, three months prior to the incident, accused Kuldeep Singh had come to her house and informed her that deceased had left her matrimonial house without his consent. She got the matter compromised. Even in the year 1994, the matter was compromised between the parties. Now significantly therein there is no reference of accused Kanta Devi nor are any acts of cruelty or harassment attributed to her. With regard to the demands for money, her statement does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that it is not the case of the prosecution that accused used to demand money. It is an exaggeration. Compromise (Ex.PF) is also silent with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty, harassment and dowry demand made by Kanta Devi. 11. Sh.Rakesh Thakur (PW.2) simply states that accused persons used to harass the deceased which prompted her to commit suicide. The accused used to say that the deceased did not know any work, did not allow the deceased to visit her parental house and did not provide proper clothes and food to her. Further accused Kuldeep Singh harassed the deceased at the behest of accused Kanta Devi. Now this version of his, to our mind, does not inspire confidence for the 5 reason that when confronted with his earlier statement (Ex.PE), recorded with police, he admits that there is no mention about the same. Further in the complaint (Ex.PE), there is also no reference about the accused not allowing the deceased to visit the parental house or not providing proper clothes and food to the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that deceased was economically dependent upon accused Kanta Devi. That apart, this witness admits that after compromise (Ex.PF) was entered into in the year 1994, there is nothing in writing to prove that deceased was subjected to harassment or maltreatment on the hands of accused persons. Compromise (Ex.PF) as noticed here-in-above, only talks about the harassment, beatings and cruelty meted out by accused Kuldeep Singh and not Kanta Devi. Further when this witness got his statement (Ex.PE) recorded with police, he only expressed his doubts and suspicion about the hand of Kanta Devi in the commission of the alleged crime. It is a settled position of law that suspicion cannot be the basis for holding the accused guilty and convicting him of the charged offence. It is to be kept in mind that Kanta Devi had informed PW.3 about the incident. Her conduct is relevant. 12. Version of Sh.Tilak Raj (PW.3) is also to the said effect. No doubt in his examination-in-chief he states that accused used to maltreat the deceased as a result of which deceased used to go to the parental house, but however, he also gives reference of agreement (Ex.PF) entered into between 6 the husband and wife. Now except for bald assertions of maltreatment, no specific instances with regard to conduct of accused Kanta Devi have been narrated by him. Why he did not report the matter to the police if he had even a suspicion about the crime. 13. Kumari Meenakshi (PW.4) is a child witness, she is of tender age. Law with regard to appreciation of statement made by the child witness is now well settled. The Court has to deal with such statements with care, caution and circumspections. In certain circumstance it may also need corroboration. This witness only states that accused used to beat her mother and also turn her out from her matrimonial house. Now this witness has deposed something which is not the case of the prosecution. It is nobody's case that deceased was even thrown out of the matrimonial house by any of the accused persons. Her statement is also unspecific with regard to time and place. Deposition of PW.9 and statement Ex.PF establish that deceased had left her matrimonial house on her own accord and not on the asking of accused persons. Consequently, her statement also is of not much help to the prosecution. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that prosecution has not been able to prove charged offence against accused Kanta Devi by leading clear, cogent, convincing, consistent and reliable evidence. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High 7 Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge May 05, 2011 (Sanjay Karol) (Purohit) Judge