IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.244 of 1994 Date of decision: 27.03.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh . Appellant Versus Smt. Kalawati and another. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the appellant: Mr.P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh,J (Oral), J. Heard and gone through the record. 2. This appeal is filed by the State against the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby the respondents, who were put on trial for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC, have been acquitted. 3. The allegations on which the respondents were charged with and tried for the aforesaid offences, may be summed up thus. Deceased Meena Devi daughter of PW-2 Lekh Ram, was married to respondent Narpat 6-7 years prior to her death. She died on 22.10.1990. For the initial two years, the deceased was looked after and maintained quite well. Thereafter, her husband Narpat and mother-in-law Kalawati started subjecting her to beatings and ill- treatment. About 3-4 years prior to the occurrence, she left her in- Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? laws’ place and went to her father’s place. Three persons from her in- laws’ place, including respondent Narpat, her husband, went to get her back. The other two persons were one Rati Ram and PW-4 Kirpa Ram. She was not sent back by her parents. Three-four months after the visit of respondent Narpat and the above-named PW-4 Kirpa Ram and Rati Ram, a sister of Narpat, namely PW-8 Banti, visited the deceased’s parents’ place to get her back. She was able to bring her back to the matrimonial home. The deceased remained at the place of the respondent for 3-4 months, whereafter she was forced out. Thereafter, she was brought back by respondent Narpat, PW-4 Kirpa Ram and Rati Ram on Rati Ram’s assurance that she would be treated well. One and a half month thereafter, i.e. on 22.10.1990, she committed suicide by consuming organophosphorus, a group of insecticide, which a poisonous substance. Her parents were informed about her death. Her father PW-2 Lekh Ram, accompanied by his brother PW-1 Khazana Ram and some other persons reached at the spot. The police was informed by them. Khazana Ram PW-1 a brother of the father of deceased, lodged report Ex.PA with the police on the basis of which case was registered against the respondents. Inquest was conducted. Dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. Viscera was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found the aforesaid poisonous substance therein. 4. The trial Court has acquitted the respondents holding that the evidence on record does not prove the allegation of abetment to commit suicide on account of ill-treating and physical torture. 5. We have heard the learned Dy. Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. It is only Khazana Ram PW-1 uncle and PW-2 Lekh Ram the father of the deceased, who have stated that the deceased used to complain of beatings and ill-treatment at the hands of the respondents. They admitted that the deceased was never subjected to any beatings or ill-treatment in their presence. The two witnesses have made not only self-contradictory statements but also contradictory to each other’s, which give the impression that the allegations testified by them may not be true. According to PW-1 Khazana Ram two years after the marriage, when the respondents started ill-treating and giving beatings to the deceased and they were apprised of this fact, they accompanied by the Pardhan of their Panchayat went to the place of the respondents. He testified that they tried to settle the matter amicably but the respondents did not listen to them with the result that they brought the deceased to their place. He further testified that thereafter a sister of respondent Narpat, the husband of the deceased, came and took the responsibility that the deceased will not be subjected to any harassment and so she was sent back to the matrimonial home in her company. He further testified that thereafter the deceased was ousted by the respondents and after sometime respondent Narpat, accompanied by Khazana Ram and Master Rati Ram, came to the house of the father of the deceased and on an assurance given by Rati Ram that the deceased would be looked after well, she was again sent back. He stated that it was the sister of respondent Narpat, with whom the deceased was sent back to the matrimonial home, last. Thus, the witness has contradicted himself on the point whether the deceased went back to the matrimonial home in the company of her husband Narpat and PW-4 Kirpa Ram and Master Rati Ram or the sister of respondent Narpat, last. 7. PW-2 Lekh Ram’s testimony shows that the sister of respondent Narpat had taken the deceased back to the matrimonial home about 2 years and 3-4 months after her marriage, that is to say, about 3-4 months before she committed suicide. The witness has stated that on coming to know about two years after the marriage of the deceased that she was not being treated properly and was being subjected to cruelty he, accompanied by his brother PW-1 Khazana Ram, Pardhan of Panchayat and PW-5 Babu Ram, went to the place of the in-laws’ of the deceased and when the respondents did not pay any heed to their pleas for keeping the deceased well, they brought her back to her parental place and 3-4 months thereafter respondent Narpat accompanied by Master Rati Ram and Kirpa Ram PW-4 came to his house and on the assurance given by Master Rati Ram, the deceased was sent back to the matrimonial home. This statement is contradictory to the testimony of PW-1 Khazana Ram that the deceased was sent back with respondent Narpat on the assurance of Rati Ram only 1½ month prior to her committing the suicide. 8. PW-5 Babu Ram, the then Pradhan of the Panchayat, who allegedly accompanied PW-1 Khazana Ram, PW-2 Lekh Ram, uncle and father, respectively, of the deceased to the place of respondents about two years after the marriage of the deceased with respondent Narpat, though stated that he accompanied the above-mentioned two witnesses to the house of the respondents yet he did not corroborate their story that the deceased was subjected to beatings and ill- treatment. The witnesses stated that the deceased was kept well, was provided nice clothes and good food, but she told that she was not interested in staying at the house of the respondents. 9. The prosecution did not lead any evidence with respect to the alleged beatings or the ill-treatment of the deceased, but for the testimony of PW-1 Khazana Ram and PW-2 Lekh Ram, who stated that the deceased used to complain to them that she was given beatings and ill-treatment by the respondent. 10. PW-1 Khazana Ram has stated that when the deceased went back to the matrimonial home about 1½ month prior to her death, she never met him but she used to meet his wife and complain to her that she was still not being kept properly and was subjected to beatings. Wife of Khazana Ram even though cited as a witness, was not examined. What the deceased allegedly complained to the wife of Khazana Ram, could have been proved only by her (the wife of Khazana Ram) as her evidence alone on this aspect of the matter was the primary evidence. Testimony of PW-1 Khazana Ram with regard to the alleged complaint by the deceased to his wife is nothing but hearsay. We also find a mention in the FIR that a few days prior to her death, the deceased had visited her parents place on Diwali festival and narrated her tale of woes to her mother and also cried while narrating such tale, but the prosecution did not examine the mother of the deceased for the reasons best known to it. 11. As a result of the above discussion, we find no valid reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh),J. 27th March, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (SDS)