HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 172 of 2003 Reserved on: 22.11.2011. Decided on: 24.11.2011. State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Jonki Ram and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 20.12.2002, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.11.1999, at about 7.00 p.m., an information was received from Medical Officer on telephone that one Sunita Devi has been admitted in District Hospital, Hamirpur as a burning case and has been brought for treatment. This rapat was entered in the Rojnamcha, Police Station, Hamirpur as __________________________________________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Ext.PW-7/A. Thereafter, the police party went to the District Hospital and recorded the statement of the injured Sunita Kumari, which is Ext.PW-7/B. In the said statement, it was alleged by Sunita Kumari that she was married in the year 1997 with Manohar Lal, respondent No.2 and after about 3 months of the marriage, her husband, father-in-law Jonki Ram, respondent No.1 and Jethani Rupa Devi, respondent No.3, used to maltreat her that she was not good, was not having good character and they also used to give her beatings. It was further alleged that on 10.11.1999, her husband asked her to return back her to her in-laws house and she refused to accompany him since they maltreat her and give her beatings. Her husband compelled her to accompany him to his parental house and she refused. At about 4.30 p.m., in a fit of anger, she went inside the room of her parents’ house, bolted the room from inside, poured kerosene oil and lit herself and sustained injuries. She does not know who opened the bolt of the door and thus, it was alleged that she took this step as a result of maltreatment meted out to her by the respondents. 3. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondents, as detailed above, leading to the acquittal of the respondents. 4. We have heard the Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondents, and have gone through the record of the case. - 3 - 5. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the case of the prosecution rests upon two statements made by the deceased, which were treated as dying declarations. Apart from these, there is statement of two of her relatives, which have to be referred to, to arrive at a correct conclusion. 6. The first statement proved on record is Ext.PW-7/B, as detailed above, in which the deceased made a statement to the police about the maltreatment. This statement was recorded by PW-7 HC Daljit Singh, who stated that he went to the hospital and gave an application to the Medical Officer Ext.PW-1/B. The doctor certified that Sunita was fit to give statement. Then, he recorded the statement Ext.PW-7/B. He further stated that he recorded this statement as per the version given by her in the presence of doctor Rattan Singh. It was thumb marked by the deceased and the same was attested by doctor Rattan Singh. He made an endorsement on the statement and sent the same to Police Station, Bhoranj for registration of the case. He denied that no statement was made by the deceased but he incorporated the version given by Jaswant Singh, uncle of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that doctor had attested the statement which was recorded in his absence. 7. The said Medical Officer Dr.Rattan Singh has been examined as PW-1, who medically examined the injured and gave his certificate Ext.PW-1/A that the patient was having burn injuries. He did not state in his statement that any statement was made by the deceased in his presence or it was recorded by any police officer in his presence or he had - 4 - certified the same to have been recorded in his presence. A perusal of the said statement Ext.PW-7/B shows that it appears to have been attested by some person, but neither the designation was mentioned nor the name, nor the medical officer had stated that it was so attested by him after it was recorded by the Police Officer. 7. It is also in evidence that thereafter the police made request to the Executive Magistrate that the statement of the injured be recorded. PW-10 Partap Singh Ranta on 30.11.1999 recorded the statement of the patient on the request of the police. He stated that he went there and found her fit for making statement and there is nothing that he took the opinion of any medical officer about her fitness. He stated that he recorded the statement Ext.PW-10/A in the presence of her father and brother. He further stated that this statement is in his hand and bears his signatures and the seal of Executive Magistrate. He admitted that no statement was made in writing. A perusal of the said statement shows that it is no statement in the eye of law since PW-10 Partap Singh Ranta had only recorded that the deceased stated that the statement made by her to the police at Hamirpur is the same statement which is correct and be read in evidence. There was nothing in her statement that the said earlier statement was read over to her or she admitted the contents as correct. It was required of the Executive Magistrate to have recorded the version given by her again in regard to the occurrence, but he did not deem it necessary and simply wrote that she states that her earlier statement is correct and this cannot be considered as dying declaration - 5 - made by the deceased prior to her death. The deceased had been admitted in the Hospital since 14.11.1999 and died on 1.12.1999, but still no attempts were made to get her statement recorded by any Magistrate and the statement so got recorded by the Executive Magistrate is no statement in the eye of law. 8. Coming to the other evidence led by the prosecution to substantiate their case, there is statement of PW-2 Bakshi Ram, father of the deceased, who has supported the allegations as made in Ext.PW-7/B. He admitted that he was at Delhi when his daughter was burnt and when he received information, he came to Shimla. His statement suggests that the deceased only told him that she had no other alternate except to finish her life. This version clearly shows that the deceased, at the first opportunity, had not told any of the facts to her father. He had only heard that the accused Manohar Lal under the influence of liquor used to turn out the deceased from the house. He also stated that the accused used to call the deceased unchaste about which he was informed by the deceased herself, but has not stated specifically as to when he was informed and as to whether he made any complaint to any person or authority in this regard. 9. PW-3 Milkhi Ram is the uncle of the deceased and according to him, the deceased used to complain that her husband is in the habit of consuming liquor and under the influence of liquor, he used to kick her out and call her unchaste. He persuaded the deceased to bear all this and that he will talk to the accused, but when he came back on 19.11.1999, he learnt about the incident. In his statement, - 6 - PW-3 Milkhi Ram has nowhere stated as to when the deceased met him, told about these facts and as to whether he talked to the father of the deceased in regard to these complaints made by her. He admitted that the deceased was having a step- mother, whose behaviour was not proper with the deceased. This fact has not been brought on record to show that it may be a ground for her to end her life. It is also on record that the deceased had come to her parents’ house alongwith her husband. In case he was having some complaints against the deceased, it may be that he would not have accompanied her to the house of his in-laws. 10. The statements of other witnesses are not very material. The learned trial Court had referred to the testimony of both the relatives of the deceased, namely, PW-2 Bakshi Ram, father of the deceased, and PW-3 Milkhi Ram, uncle of the deceased as well as the statements of the deceased recorded by the police and the Executive Magistrate. However, this is not sufficient material to hold that there was any harassment due to cruelty meted out to the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that there was any immediate provocation to the deceased to commit suicide or that the accused persons can be held liable for the abetment of suicide. The mere fact that the husband of the deceased had asked her to accompany him to his house is no ground for the deceased to take this extreme step of ending her life for which the respondents cannot be held liable. 11. On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, we are satisfied that the final findings recorded by - 7 - the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents are based upon correct appreciation of evidence and law and these do not call for an interference by this Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which stands dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. November 24, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.