1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.81 of 1997 Decided on: 31.5.2010. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Kiru Ram & anr ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. AG. For the respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): Heard Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant / State and Mr. Romesh Verma, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The present criminal appeal has arisen consequent upon granting leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the impugned judgment dated 1.10.1996, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, HP in Sessions Trial No. 7-S/7 of 1996, for the alleged involvement of the accused-respondents, Under Section 306, 498-A IPC, thereby acquitting the alleged accused/ respondents. 3. In order to adjudicate the present criminal appeal, it is necessary to refer the prosecution case in brief. Accused Sh. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 Kiru Ram is resident of village Amber. Accused Bimla Devi is his wife. Sh. Prem Singh is son of the accused. Sh. Prem Singh was married to Smt. Parwati Devi, daughter of Sh. Lachhi Ram, resident of villge Chhobal. The marriage of Sh.Prem Singh with Smt. Parwati Devi took place in the year 1990. Smt. Parwati Devi was suffering from epilepsy. She committed suicide on July 14, 1994 at about 12.20 PM at village Amber. The dead body of Smt. Parwati Devi was brought to Civil Hospital, Solan. Information regarding her death was sent to her father Sh. Lachhi Ram. On learning about the death of Smt. Parwati Devi, Sh. Lachhi Ram rushed to Civil Hospital, Solan. Sub Inspector of Police Sh. Sardar Lal was present at the Hospital. He recorded the statement of Sh. Lachhi Ram under section 154 Cr.PC. The same was sent to police station, Solan for the purpose of registration of the case. On the basis of his statement, FIR No. 106/1994 was registered against the accused persons. 4. In order to prove its case under section 306, 498-A IPC, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses, whereas the alleged accused persons had totally denied the prosecution case in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and had shown their innocence. 5. The prosecution case is said to be depending on the version of the father-in-law and mother-in-law that the deceased did not bring anything from her parents house and the deceased came to their house before 15 days of the said occurrence when victim was residing at her parents house. Undisputedly, Smt. Parwati Devi had died of respiratery failure. 3 The postmortem examination report Ex PW-4/A and the Inquest report Ex PW-5/A established that Smt. Parwati Devi/victim committed suicide. Postmortem examination was performed by Dr (Mrs) Kamlesh Sharma PW-4. In her opinion, victim died on account of respiratery failure as the victim is said to have consumed Thiodan (an organochloro insecticide). On proving its case, prosecution relied upon the testimony of Lachhi Ram and Smt. Manku Devi, father and mother respectively of the deceased. However from the testimony of Lachhi Ram PW-1, we noticed that he had no where specifically indicated that the accused have abetted the commission of suicide. Lachhi Ram PW-1, has, however, stated that her daughter was married in the year 1990 and has committed suicide on 13.7.1994 and 15 days prior to her death, the victim had told PW-1 that the accused used to tell her that she had brought inadequate dowry. In cross examination, PW- 1 has stated that the accused had never demanded dowry directly from him. It has also been stated in the cross examination of PW-1 that when victim visited his house, her child was also with her and she stayed at the house of PW-1 for about 8-9 days and the victim was suffering from epilepsy. 6. PW-2, Smt. Manku Devi, wife of PW-1 and the mother of victim had stated that victim used to sometimes complain that her father in law and mother in law were teasing her for bringing inadequate dowry. In the cross examination, PW-2 has stated that about 10-11 days back prior to her death, her husband and victim came to her house along with children and left the house in the morning of following day and thereafter PW-2 never 4 met the victim nor the victim visited her house and the epilepsy developed after her marriage and a treatment was going on in her in-laws house. Contradictions have been noticed from the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. According to the testimony of PW- 2, victim came to her house with her husband and children and she was appearing happy at that time. PW-1 has categorically indicated in his cross examination that the victim stayed 8-9 days in his house. On the testimony of both the prosecution witnesses, nothing is revealed that when the victim was instigated or abetted for inadequate dowry. We are not able to notice anything from the prosecution witnesses or from the record that such complaint was ever divulged to anybody or was lodged to the police and no material record either in writing or by oral testimony of anybody has been brought before us that she was ill treated for bringing inadequate dowry and the accused were instrumental or abetting the victim fir committing suicide. Vital and important prosecution witnesses have given the contradictory version specifically giving vague statements about the complaint of bringing inadequate dowry being made by the accused side. The prosecution witnesses are not inspiring confidence. Apparent contradictions have been noticed. No evidence, is indicating that the prosecution has been able to prove that any act or deed of accused directly or indirectly was a factor of instigating or abetting the victim for suicide. 7. In our considered view, trial court has rightly found that the prosecution has failed to prove the story beyond 5 reasonable doubt. Therefore, the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt. 8. In view of the above discussion / analysis, there appears to be no illegality and, therefore, no scope of interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused / respondents are hereby discharged. (R.B.Misra) Judge (V.K.Sharma) Judge. 31st May,2010 (sl)