HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 551 of 2001. Alongwith Cr.A. No.: 552 of 2001. Cr.A. No.: 553 of 2001. Decided on: 17.6.2008. Cr.A.No.551 of 2001. Sita Ram ………Appellant. Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent. Cr.A.No.552 of 2001. Gita Ram ………Appellant. Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent. Cr.A.No.553 of 2001. Duni Chand ………Appellant. Versus State of H.P. ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant(s): Mr.Anup Chitkara & Mr.Bhupender Ahuja, Advocates, in all the appeals. For the respondent(s): Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer, in all the appeals. 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This judgment shall dispose of all the appeals filed by the appellants arising out of the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 19.9.2001, vide which the appellants were held guilty and sentenced as under: Under Section 306 IPC read with Seven years simple imprisonment each Section 34 IPC and fine of Rs.7,000/- each. In default of payment of the fine, the convicted shall further undergo simple imprisonment of one year. Under Section 498-A IPC read with Three years simple imprisonment each Section 34 IPC and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the convicted shall further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the marriage of Suman Devi, deceased, was performed with Sita Ram appellant on 6.5.1996. A report was lodged with the police by Duni Chand, the elder brother of appellant Sita Ram, on 10.12.1996 at 10.30 a.m. that the wife of his younger brother, namely, Suman Devi has committed suicide by hanging and her dead body is lying in the house and action be taken accordingly. Thereafter, it appears that he went to the house of the parents of the deceased Suman Devi, informed them about the death, they came to the Village and a report was lodged with the police by one PW-1 Desh Raj, the eldest brother of the deceased, on the basis of which the case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the appellants leading to their trial and conviction by the learned trial Court. - 3 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The fact that the marriage was performed in between the deceased and the appellant Sita Ram on 6.5.1996 is not in dispute. The fact that the death occurred on 10.12.1996, within about 7 months of the marriage, is also not in dispute and according to the prosecution the inference has to be drawn under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act that in case a question arises whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she has committed suicide within the period of 7 years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband. The evidence of the prosecution has to be appreciated in the light of the presumption which can be drawn under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act since the death has taken place within 7 years of the marriage in between the deceased and the appellant Sita Ram. A perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution shows that the prosecution case mainly rests upon the statement of four relatives of the deceased whose statements need to be carefully appreciated and as to whether they prove the guilt of the appellants or not. The first relative of the deceased examined is PW-1 Desh Raj, elder brother of the deceased, on whose statement Ext.PW-1/A recorded under - 4 - Section 154 Cr.P.C. the case was registered by the police. A perusal of this statement shows that he enquired from Suman, the deceased, about the reasons why she had not visited her parental house as per custom during the Sawan month. She disclosed that she was being maltreated by Sita Ram her husband and by his friends. She further disclosed that she was being compelled by accused Sita Ram to dance and he alongwith his friends used to play musical instruments. She further disclosed that if she refused to do so, she was being beaten by the accused Sita Ram. He further stated that his sister Suman had disclosed to him that she was not allowed by the accused persons to talk with anybody in the Village. Thus, two reasons emerge for the harassment of the deceased from the perusal of the statement of PW-1 Desh Raj, one is in regard to dancing being insisted by the husband of the deceased in the presence of his friends and secondly, that she was not being allowed by the accused persons to talk with anybody in the Village. In cross examination, he clearly stated that Sita Ram or others had never raised any demand of any sort from him or from his parents and others in any respect whatsoever. In further cross examination, he came up with the statement that he had stated to the police that Suman disclosed to him that she should bring money from the parents or she should leave the house. This fact was stated to her by her husband and members of his family. He admitted that he had not told this to police because of the fear of mockery in the public. In further cross examination, he stated that he had informed his mother and father that the accused told his deceased sister Suman to bring money or to reside separately from the accused. This fact was disclosed by him to his mother and father in the month of August. - 5 - Coming to the testimony of PW-2 Rakesh, another brother of the deceased, he has also stated that Suman was not sent to her parental house on the festivals of Diwali, Bhaiduj and was not allowed to visit her parental house in the month of Sawan (Kala Mahina) by the accused persons. He stated that all the accused persons did not allow the deceased to visit her parental house. He further stated that his sister came to their house after 10 days of Diwali to celebrate the Deothan festival. The deceased met him in bazaar and also wept in the bazaar in his presence. He further stated that his deceased sister told him that accused, namely, Sita Ram, Duni Chand and mother-in-law Nandi Devi demanded money from the deceased and she also told him that her husband Sita Ram had told her that he would re-marry. It is clear from a perusal of the statement of this witness that inspite of complaints made to him by his sister, he did not visit her in-laws’ house or the rented house at Chambaghat, where Sita Ram used to reside. He further clarified that his mother and father did not talk about deceased Suman with him at any point of time. He further stated that he did not talk about the second marriage, which accused Sita Ram told to his deceased sister, with any of the relatives of Sita Ram or any of his own relatives. He again stated that he did not disclose to his parents that the deceased had met him and that she was weeping. PW-7 Bimla Devi, mother of the deceased, has clearly stated that the deceased was kept quite well upto two months of marriage and thereafter, she was maltreated. She stated that in general the deceased was harassed by Duni Chand, Nandi Devi and Geeta. She further stated that the deceased used to insist the accused to accompany her to her parents house but the accused used - 6 - to tell her that only her husband would accompany her. The elder sister-in-law of deceased accompanied the deceased to her parental house. She further stated that the accused Sita Ram used to beat the deceased and forced her to dance. She further stated that Sita Ram and Geeta Ram used to demand money from her. They demanded Rs.20,000/- for the construction of the house. She did not state when this demand was made, whether at the time when she visited the house after Diwali or prior to that. She further stated that the accused told the deceased to bring the money from her parental house but when this was done was not stated by her. She came with another plea that accused Duni Chand used to visit the bed of the deceased whenever she was taking meal and he used to remain in the bed. She clearly admitted in her cross examination that the deceased had visited their house six times prior to her death and she used to visit within intervals of two months. She further stated that the deceased used to visit their house and was brought by her sisters-in-law at different times. However, she did not visit the residential house of the in-laws of the deceased and her son and her husband did not visit Chambaghat at any point of time. She stated that the demand for the money was made from the deceased after four months of the marriage but when this fact was told by the deceased to her was not stated by her. She clearly stated that accused Sita Ram did not demand anything from them when he came to their house. She further stated that when the deceased came to the parental house, her brother was not present in the house and, therefore, it is not possible that any complaint was made by her to her brother. PW-7 has further stated that two sisters of the deceased and their relatives went back jointly from their house alongwith the deceased and her - 7 - sister-in-law. She further stated that she had disclosed to her husband and son that the accused demanded money after 8 days of Deothan month. She further stated that the deceased died after three months of Deothan month. She clearly stated that about 40 persons had gone to the in-laws’ house of the deceased after the death of the deceased, but no suspicion was caused by anybody. She inquired about the whereabouts of Sita Ram and it was learnt that he was away on duty at Chambaghat. She clearly stated that her son Rakesh Kumar did not inform her that the deceased had met him at Kunihar, when she returned back to her in-laws’ house after the festival of Deothan. She further stated that she did not disclose to their Pradhan that her deceased daughter was being ill- treated by the accused persons. She also did not disclose this fact to any other person. She further stated that the mother-in-law of the deceased had visited their residential house three days prior to her death in connection with some marriage. She is very clear in her statement that their relations were cordial with the accused prior to the death of the deceased. PW-9 Ramesh Chand stated that the deceased was the daughter of his brother and that one month prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased’s father told him that the deceased was being ill treated by her in-laws. He further stated that the deceased met him one month prior to her death at Bus Stand, Kunihar and told him that she was being maltreated by her in-laws. His statement suggested that he was the real brother of the deceased’s father. In his cross examination he has very clearly stated that the deceased was from their Biradari only. It looks surprising that he was only from the Biradari of the deceased and the deceased made complaints to him when he met her at the Bus - 8 - Stand, Kunihar. He also very clearly stated that dowry is not demanded in their Biradari. From the above discussion of the statements of the relatives of the deceased, some facts emerge which clearly lead to the inference that the prosecution case cannot be said to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The deceased was married for about 7 months prior to her death and she was permitted to visit her parents for about 6-7 times during this period of 7 months. Thus, there is no grievance of the deceased that she was not being permitted by her in-laws to visit her parental house. There is nothing as to whether any report was ever lodged with any relative of the deceased or with the Pradhan of the Panchayat by the parents of the deceased about the harassment made by the accused persons to the deceased. Every member of the family, who has appeared in the witness box, as has come in the evidence, has come up with a different plea about the harassment and it is quite surprising that they had not consulted each other or discussed the grievance of their daughter or sister whenever any complaint was received by them. PW-1 Desh Raj, the eldest brother of the deceased, has given two versions about the dancing being insisted by the husband of the deceased in presence of his friends and she was not being allowed to visit the villagers. However, in regard to dancing only PW-7 Bimla Devi, the mother of the deceased, has stated but she is also not clear as to when this complaint was made to her. Moreover, in regard to the fact that she was not allowed to meet the villagers, the letter produced by the prosecution Mark PW-1/A shows a different story where the deceased had written letter duly proved by her brother PW-2 Rakesh to be in her hand where she praised the reputation of the family - 9 - and that she is getting love of the villagers which refutes the allegation that she was not being allowed to talk to the villagers. No complaint is made in the said letter by her about the conduct or reputation of her husband. In so far as the statement made by PW-7 Bimla Devi is concerned that accused Duni Chand used to sit on the bed of the prosecutrix when she was taking meal, this is not sufficient to hold that he made any indecent assault or took liberty with her at any time. The mere fact that he used to sit upon her bed may be out of affection or had any bad intention is not clear from the statement made by PW-7 and this cannot be termed as a circumstance of harassment made by Duni Chand. This fact is not supported by any of the other relatives of the deceased whose statements have been discussed above. There is nothing on the record to show as to how much money was demanded by the accused persons, when it was demanded and in whose presence these talks were held and rather the statement of PW-1 Desh Raj shows that he did not talk to his mother and father in regard to any complaint made by the deceased. It has also come up in the evidence of PW-1 Desh Raj that they received the information about the death of the deceased at about 5.00 a.m. and he alongwith other persons reached there at 10.30 a.m. However, according Ext.PW-1/A, the statement was made by him at 1.30 p.m. on the basis of which the FIR was registered. This clearly shows that PW-1 Desh Raj alongwith his other relatives was present in the village of the in-laws of the deceased for three hours before he lodged the report with the police, who was also present there. This does not lead to the inference that they had time to fabricate a false case but they had time to make consultations as to the probable cause of the death of the deceased. However, when the report Ext.PW-1/A was made, the only - 10 - allegations made were that whenever the deceased came to their house, she complained that her husband used to give her beatings and used to proclaim that he has been married forcibly with the deceased and nothing else was alleged to be the cause of suicide. In case the cause was known to the informant on the basis of the information received by him from his deceased sister or other members of the family, he could have easily stated his suspicion that for this particular reason the suicide has been committed by the deceased, but this is not so which makes the prosecution story also doubtful. Coming to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it appears that the learned trial Court was swayed by many incidents of the deaths of younger women taking place in India but that is not a ground to hold that this is such a case where the conclusion can be drawn that the deceased committed suicide because of the harassment caused to her by her husband and other relatives. It is also in the evidence that the husband of the deceased was not in the home when the deceased committed suicide and he was away to Chambaghat at the place of his posting. No marks of injury were found on the body of the deceased as per the statements of PW-5 Dr.B.K. Bhardwaj and PW- 10 Dr.N.K. Gupta and no inference can be drawn that any beating were given to her which was the immediate cause for her to commit the suicide. It is not for the court to give a finding as to why the deceased committed suicide though it does weigh in the mind of the court that since the death has taken place within 7 years of the marriage and there is nothing to show that the deceased was abnormal or insane or had tendency to commit suicide, but that is not the ground to hold that the appellants had abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. The deceased may have committed suicide for any reason which may - 11 - be in her mind and that has not come on the record, but the evidence produced by the prosecution does not establish that the accused persons abetted the suicide committed by the deceased or that there was any harassment caused by the appellants to the deceased. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellants guilty are liable to the set aside and the same are set aside. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is accordingly set aside. The fine, if realized, shall be refunded back to the appellants. Bail bonds furnished by the appellants shall also stand discharged. A certified copy of the judgment be placed on the record of the other connected appeals. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. Record of the trial court be returned back. June 17, 2008 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.