IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.118 of 1994 Decided on : January 10, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Mansha Devi …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. D.S. Nainta, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Respondent, who is the mother-in-law of deceased Kamla, was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. Trial Court has acquitted her. 3. Deceased was married to the son of the respondent about three years prior to the commission of suicide by her. Husband of the deceased was employed at Moga in Punjab. He left the house about two months prior to the incident. The date of the incident is 3rd July, 1991. The deceased sprinkled kerosene on herself and lighted fire. She was immediately taken to the nearby Primary Health Centre, Lapian, where she was medically examined. She was found to have sustained 60 per cent burn injuries. She was shifted to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, on the same day. She was medically examined at the said hospital also. While admitted to Zonal Hospital Dharamshala, the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… deceased made a statement, on 4th July, 1991, that she had attempted suicide, because her mother-in-law used to harass her and hurl abuses at her, on the pretext that she did not do any work. She also stated that the respondent used to curse her by using the words “why does not she die”. She stated that fed up with the use of abusive language of the respondent, she had poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. 4. To prove the charge against the respondent, prosecution proved statement Ex. PD made by the deceased on 4th July, 1991, while admitted to Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala. The statement was made to PW-1 Sub Inspector Sher Singh in the presence of PW-4 Inder Singh Bhardwaj. PW-11 Sher Singh stated that the deceased made the statement, Ex. PD, in the presence of PW-4 Inder Singh Bhardwaj. PW-4 Inder Singh Bhardwaj stated that the statement was made by the deceased in his presence. Trial Court doubted the statement with the reasoning that in the endorsement made by PW-11 Sher Singh at the foot of the statement, initially it is written that the same was made in the presence of the SDM but, after cutting and overwriting, letters “SDM” have been changed into the word “Tehsildar”. It is stated that PW-4 Inder Singh Bhardwaj was working as Tehsildar, at the relevant time. 5. We are of the view that the trial Court was not justified in disbelieving statement Ex.PD on this score, because PW-11 Sher Singh was not asked about the cutting of letters “SDM” and the overwriting of word “Tehsildar” in place thereof in his endorsement, despite the fact that the witness, in no uncertain terms, testified that he recorded the statement in the presence of Tehsildar. 6. However, we are of the view that statement Ex. PD, even if it be taken at its face value, does not prove the charge of cruelty or the abetment of suicide, because as per this statement respondent only …3… used to hurl abuses to the deceased for not doing any work or at times even used to curse her by using the words “why does not she die”. Normally, the old women curse the young ladies, be they the daughters or daughters-in-law, in the fashion alleged by the deceased, for their not doing household work or for doing such work not to the satisfaction of such women. It appears that the deceased was oversensitive. It also appears from statement Ex. PD that the deceased was feeling pangs of separation from her husband, because in the initial part of the statement it is recorded that her husband had left about two months back to do private service at Moga. The father of the deceased stated that the deceased used to complain that her mother-in-law hurled abuses at her. As already noticed, hurling of abuses by the elderly women, particularly in rural remote areas, is not taken very seriously by the young ladies. 7. In view of the abovestated position, we see no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J. January 10, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J.