IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 169 of 2003 Date of Decision: 24.11.2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Ramesh Singh @ Ranbir & another …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. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG. For the Respondents: Ms. Divya Sood, Advocate vice Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 9.1.2003 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that deceased Champa Devi was married to Ramesh Singh @ Ranbir, the first accused. The second accused Subhas Devi was the mother-in-law of 2 deceased Champa Devi. There is no dispute that the body of Champa Devi was found hanging in her matrimonial home on the night intervening 17th/18th December, 2001. The only question is whether she committed suicide or whether she was strangulated by her husband and mother-in-law and then they hung her body to show that it was a case of suicide. 3. After the death of Champa Devi at about 12.00 noon her sister-in-law PW-2 Veena Devi was informed about her death by DW-1 Ajmer Singh, brother of accused No.1. PW-2 Veena Devi in turn informed her father-in-law (PW-1) and thereafter PW- 1 accompanied by PW-2 and her husband Balwant Singh and other villagers visited the matrimonial home of Champa Devi. On reaching the house, they found that the body of Champa Devi was hanging from a ceiling fan and it appeared that she had hung herself with the use of a dupatta. Her feet were touching the bed and a stool was lying nearby. PW-1 went to the Police Station, Nurpur and lodged report No.16 Ext.PD. Thereafter SI Harbhajan Singh went to the house of the deceased, prepared inquest reports Ext.PB and Ext.PC and recorded the statement Ext.PA of Jaram Singh under Section 154 3 Cr.P.C. On this basis, FIR was registered in Police Station, Nurpur. 4. The dead body of deceased Champa Devi was sent for postmortem examination alongwith application Ext.PW-8/A. PW-8 Dr. Vivek Sood conducted the postmortem and his opinion was that the death had been caused due to asphyxia, caused by constricting force around the neck. Even after the chemical examination of the viscera, the same opinion was confirmed. Other investigation was carried out and after completion of the investigation, the accused were charged with having committed the murder of Champa Devi. 5. It was alleged that Champa Devi was treated cruelly by her husband and her in-law’s on account of demand of dowry. In the first information given by the father (Ext. PA) there allegation was leveled against the husband and the only allegation against the mother-in-law was that she used to trouble deceased Champa Devi on small issues. When Champa Devi complained to her father Jaram Singh about these incidents he advised her not to make a big issue out of small matters. In this statement it is alleged by Jaram Singh that for this reason deceased Champa Devi was suffering within herself. The only 4 allegation is that the deceased died due to maltreatment by her mother-in-law. There is not even a whisper in the first statement recorded by the police that the father even suspected that his daughter had been murdered. While appearing in the witness box PW-1 Jaram Singh father again repeated the same version but he also made substantial embellishments and improvements. Though in the statement in Court he stated that the deceased had informed him that her mother-in-law and the husband used to maltreat her on petty domestic matters, the same is not recorded in the first report Ext. PD or in the statement Ext.PA. The only allegation, as mentioned above, is against the mother-in-law and not against the husband. 6. It would be pertinent to mention that PW-1 retired from the police and had served for 33 years in the police and therefore, he knew what statement had to be made at the first stage and if the husband had been ill-treating the daughter of the witness he would have in natural course told the police at the first instance itself, when he lodged the report Ext. PD or when he made his statement Ext.PA, about the ill-treatment by the husband. These facts were not stated at the first instance and therefore, the 5 possibility of this story having been cooked up at a later stage cannot be ruled out. As such, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive behind the alleged murder. 7. The next important factor is that the medical evidence does not at all support the story of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered. No doubt, PW-8 Dr. Vivek Sood has stated that the deceased died due to asphyxia, caused by constricting force around the neck but he could not say that the deceased have been throttled and thereafter hung to make it like a case of suicide. He in fact in cross-examination has stated that if a person keeps a stool on a bed and commits suicide by hanging herself with a dupatta and in case the stool is pushed off then the person is likely to have a ligature marks around the neck. 8. Another important factor is that there is no mark of struggle on the body of the deceased and in case she would have been strangulated there would have been resistance and in all probability there should have been marks on her body. The medical evidence does not in any manner prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was caused by strangulation. In fact the various physical 6 observations made by the doctor lean towards a case of suicide rather than strangulation. 9. In view of the above discussion, where are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. November 24, 2011 ( V.K. Ahuja) (vt) Judge.