IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 385 of 1996 Date of decision: 18.3.2010 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Rajdei and another ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant-State: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For the respondent: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 29.9.1995 of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions trial No.25 of 1992 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The undisputed facts are that in April, 1990 Smt. Chand Rani, deceased, was married to Shakti Chand, who was the son of the two accused. According to the prosecution, Chand Rani committed suicide on 12th April, 1992 i.e. within two years of her marriage. After the death of the deceased her father PW-1 Ranjit Singh lodged a complaint with the police on the basis of which F.I.R. Ext.PA was registered. In this report, he complained that his daughter was being subjected to cruelty by the accused 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 for not bringing adequate dowry and had been maltreated and harassed on this account. He also complained that she had been driven to commit suicide and finally committed suicide on the night intervening 12/13th April, 1992 by consuming poison. According to the prosecution, the accused tried to cremate the deceased without informing anybody and were thus guilty of having committed an offence of destroying the evidence relating to the crime also. It is not disputed that before the body could be cremated, the police reached the cremation ground and the body was sent for postmortem. The doctor had opined that the death had occurred due to aluminium phosphide poisoning. After completion of the investigation challan was filed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial they have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal by the State. PW-1 is the father of the deceased. He is the person who lodged the report. Before dealing with his statement, we may note that he is a retired Sub-Inspector of the Police and had served for about 25 years in the police and before that for 15 years in the army. Therefore, we are dealing with a person who was well versed with the procedure of lodging a F.I.R, etc. and his statement has to be examined in this light. In the F.I.R, PW-1 had stated that his daughter had committed suicide on account of harassment but while appearing 3 in Court he changed his version. He stated that he had never made a statement to the police that his daughter had committed suicide. According to him he had told the police that he suspected that accused Rajdei had administered poison to his daughter. His explanation is that he does not know Hindi and was not aware of what was recorded by the police. This witness also states that his daughter had complained to him that both the accused used to harass her for bringing insufficient dowry and used to harass her by stating that she (the deceased) is the daughter of a Thanedar but had brought nothing. According to this witness accused Rajdei also threatened to kill the deceased. He states that in December, 1991 when his son-in-law Shakti Chand had come home on leave, he had gone to the house of the accused and had advised accused Rajdei not to harass or ill- treat his daughter. According to him Rajdei did not reply to his allegation and remained silent. He feared that Rajdei may murder his daughter and therefore asked his son-in-law to ensure that his daughter is left at her parents house when he goes back to join his duty. He also states that he received a letter from the deceased asking him to bring her home since she feared for her life. Then he asked his relative Dalel Sing (PW-5) to take the deceased to his house. According to this witness on 13.4.1992 he received a message at about 11.00 a.m, from some person who came from 4 the house of the accused, who informed him about the death of his daughter. He reached the cremation ground in the village of the accused persons alongwith police at about 2.00 p.m. The body had been put on the pyre but had not been cremated since PW-Balbir Singh, Ashwani Kumar and one constable had already reached the cremation ground and extinguished the fire. He then lodged the F.I.R. Ext.PA. In cross-examination he states that Chand Rani visited her parental house after marriage for the first time after about 10 days of marriage. According to him, his daughter told her mother about some demands made by the accused and the mother PW-2 Makhmal Devi informed him about these demands lateron. He had also verified this fact from the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased remained for about 3-4 months at her in-laws house and wrote two letters to him in which also she mentioned that she has been harassed by her in- laws. She again came back after 3-4 months when she stayed for 10-15 days at the parental house. Again she complained about ill-treatment being meted out to her on account of bringing insufficient dowry at the hands of the accused. He has admitted that the deceased used to write letters to him but states that since the letters were written in Hindi he could not read them. These letters were mainly addressed to the other family members, including the brothers of the deceased, and they used to inform him about the contents of the letters. He states that 5 he did not keep any of these letters since he never thought that his daughter would be murdered by her in-laws. In fact, this portion of his statement is contrary to the earlier statement made in examination-in-chief, wherein he states that he apprehended that his daughter would be murdered by her mother-in-law. He states that only one letter, which he had received on 2nd April, 1992 was kept by him which he handed over to the police. Even this letter has not been produced in evidence. Though in his statement in Court the witness has given details of the dowry demanded i.e. T.V, Radio, etc. but there is no such mention in the initial complaint Ext.PA. In fact, in the original complaint there is no mention of any letters also. There are marked improvements in the statement of this witness and he has added a number of very significant matters in his testimony in the Court which were not recorded in the original complaint Ext.PA. In Court he has also contradicted his original complaint on material issues. As already pointed out above, in the complaint Ext.PA he had stated that his daughter had committed suicide but in Court he stated that he had not made such a statement. Similarly, in his testimony in Court this witness states that he did not know the name of the person who came to inform him about the death of his daughter. He was confronted with his statement in which it was recorded that Diwana Ram PW-7 had come to inform him. 6 The statement of Makhmal Dei PW-2 is only to the effect that her daughter complained to her that her mother-in-law used to harass her and ill-treat her for bringing less dowry. In cross- examination this witness states that when Chand Rani (deceased) came home for the first time she only made general complaints about maltreatment but no specific complaint was made. This is contrary to the statement of PW-1, who had specifically stated that the demand was in relation to dowry. This witness has also been confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein a totally different version appears. In the statement made to the police she stated that accused Rajdei had treated her daughter well for the first six months. If that was true why would the daughter complain when she came home for the first time after ten days. PW-3 Balbir Singh states that on 13th April, 1992 he had gone to his village. At about 6.30 in the morning he came to know that Chand Rani had died and he suspected some foul play. He, therefore, telephonically informed the parents of the deceased and her relatives about her death. He further states that when he reached the cremation ground at 9.45 a.m the pyre had just been lit but the relatives of the deceased and a constable got the fire extinguished. This statement is contradictory to the statement of PW-1, who states that he first came to know about the death of his daughter through a 7 message received from a person sent by the accused at about 11.00 a.m. Who was the relative of the deceased, who had reached the cremation ground is not clear. Though this witness has not named the constable in examination-in-chief but in cross-examination he states that constable was one Roop Lal whom he met by chance when he got down from the bus near village Kathum, whom he had taken to the cremation ground. PW-4 Ram Dass states that PW-1 Ranjit Singh talked to him about the maltreatment of his daughter by her in-laws. He had also gone with Ranjit Singh to the cremation ground. He states that he and Ranjit Singh came to cremation ground in a truck. According to him Ranjit Singh had shown him one letter at the cremation ground but he did not read the same. PW-5 Dalel Singh is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He had gone to the house of Ranjit Singh a week prior to the incident and Ranjit Singh informed him that the accused Rajdei is harassing the deceased Chand Rani and asked him (Dalel Singh) to bring Chand Rani to his house. This witness then sent his son to bring Chand Rani to his house. He states that thereafter Chand Rani stayed with them for about 4 days till 10.04.1992 and during these days she was absolutely alright and happy. The witness states that he specifically inquired whether her in-laws were harassing her on account of dowry and she told the witness that she had already written regarding the treatment given by 8 the accused to accused Mahant Ram and had told her father about the treatment meted out to her. This witness does not say that the deceased told him anything about the ill-treatment. He further states that at about 10.30 a.m he had come to know that Chand Rani had expired and thereafter he went to the cremation ground and found that the pyre had been partly lit but had been later extinguished. The statement of this witness does not support the prosecution since according to him the deceased was normal and did not complain to him (her maternal uncle) about ill-treatment being meted out to her by her in laws. This witness also states that by the time he reached the cremation ground some people from the parental village of Chand Rani had already reached there. PW-6 Roop Lal states that he was on patrolling duty and at about 10.00 a.m he met PW-3 Balbir Singh who informed him that one Chand Rani had died in mysterious circumstances and asked him to accompany him to the cremation ground. He went there. The body of Chand Rani was being prepared for cremation. The body had been put on the pyre and the fire was lit from one side but he got the fire extinguished. After about one hour SHO Duni Chand alongwith parents of the deceased Chand Rani reached the spot. This witness, therefore, also contradicts Ranjit Singh. According to Ranjit Singh, he reached 9 the spot at 2.00 p.m whereas this witness specifically states that Ranjit Singh had reached at about 11.30 a.m. Statement of PW-7 Diwana Ram is also important. He states that at about 7.30 p.m on 12th April, he was called to the house of Mahant Ram accused, and Chand Rani was already lying dead. He was informed by Mahant Ram that she had died due to stomach ache. 10-15 other persons gathered on the spot. At 7.30 a.m Mahant Ram accused told this witness to inform the parents of the deceased about her death by taking the first bus in the morning to their village. He states that when he went by bus he met Balbir at Talai and he also informed him about the death of Chand Rani. In cross-examination he states that Mahant Ram accused had asked him to convey to the parents of the deceased that the dead body would not be cremated till they reached. PW-8 does not support the prosecution version. The defence has led evidence. DW-1 is an Ayurvedic practitioner in the village of the accused. He states that on 12.4.1992 he was called by accused Mahant Ram to his house at about 6.30 p.m., since the daughter-in-law of Mahant Ram was seriously ill. He went there and according to him he felt that she had suffered a heart-attack. However, before he could give her any treatment she died. From the evidence discussed above, it is clear that no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW-1 since there are 10 material contradictions in the statement which have not been explained. In fact there is no allegation against Mahant Ram accused at all. The allegation, if any, is against Rajdei. This allegation has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. As discussed above, there are many different versions. One version is that for the first six months Rajdei treated her daughter-in-law well. The second version is that within 15 days of marriage the deceased complained to her parents. Another version is that she complained for the first time after three months. Having regard to the fact that the complainant was a retired police official the contradictions between his initial complaint and the statement made in the Court assume greater significance. Even the demand of dowry is not specific. In the absence of any clear cut proof regarding such demand of dowry and ill-treatment or harassment meted out to the deceased it cannot be said that it is the conduct of the accused alone which instigated the deceased to commit suicide. With regard to the offence under Section 201 IPC, even the accused were not having knowledge of the fact that the deceased had committed suicide. The father-in-law had called a doctor (Ayurvedic practitioner) to treat the deceased. This doctor while appearing as DW-1 has clearly stated that he suspected that the deceased had a heart-attack. If a medical 11 practitioner can believe this then obviously a lay person would have no reason to suspect that the deceased had committed suicide. The accused Mahant Ram admittedly sent Diwana Ram to inform the family members of the deceased. It is also apparent that the prosecution is hiding something about the time when such information was given to the family of the deceased since according to PW-3 Balbir Singh, some persons from the village of the deceased had reached the cremation ground even before he had reached there. This casts a great doubt on the prosecution story itself. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 18th March, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) ™ Judge.