HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No.: 145 of 1994 Reserved on: 13.10.2008 Decided on: 22.10.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh ………Appellant. Versus Sumer Singh 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.R.M. Bisht and Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr.K.D. Sood and Mr.Sanjeev Sood, Advocates. Per V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 20.9.1993, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6.6.1990, the statement of PW-1 Mahijit Singh was recorded by the police officer under Section 154 Cr.P.C. In the said statement, the complainant alleged that last year, he performed the marriage of his daughter Anju Devi with respondent No.1. It was alleged that Anju Devi came to his house in the month of Baishakh. Whenever the respondents attended some marriage, they, after attending the marriage, complained to her that her parents have not given anything in the marriage. It ______________________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. was also alleged that respondents No.2 and 3 used to proclaim that they would re-marry respondent No.1. It was alleged that for this reason the respondents used to give beatings to Anju Devi and also used to maltreat her. It was further alleged that one month earlier Anju Devi had visited their house and she was having an injury on her head and Anju Devi told him that her husband respondent No.1 had given this blow and six stitches were applied. He further alleged that he and his wife advised Anju Devi and sent her back to her in-laws’ house. He also had a talk with one Kanshi Ram to advise the respondents not to maltreat Anju Devi. It was further alleged that he learnt today that his daughter was ill and when he visited her in-laws’ house, he found that she was already dead. It was alleged that the respondents have given some poison to Anju Devi, who had died because of maltreatment. On this basis, a case was registered by the police. After investigation, the challan was filed before the SDJM, Sarkaghat, who committed the case to the trial Court, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General were that there was sufficient evidence on record which proves the charge of cruelty and consequently since the deceased had died within about one year of the marriage, the presumption can be drawn that she has died because of maltreatment and it was a case of dowry death punishable under Section 304-B IPC and the findings to the contrary recorded by the learned trial Court are liable to be reversed. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that the respondents have been charged under Section 304-B IPC for having subjected the deceased to cruelty for having not brought dowry to their expectations and that she died of poisoning. Therefore, the evidence has to be appreciated in the light of the charge framed for subjecting the deceased to cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. We will firstly refer to the testimony of the parents of the deceased and other relatives examined by the prosecution. The first witness examined is PW-1 Mahijit Singh, father of the deceased. He has stated that whenever his daughter used to visit their place after marriage, she would complain that her in-laws harassed and taunted her that her parents were mean and that they had not given sufficient dowry. He referred to one incident one month prior to the death of his daughter when respondent No.1 had hit the deceased with a bottle on the head and she had a cut wound which had to be stitched and six stitches were applied. He stated that after this injury, his daughter had visited their place. He took her back to her in-laws’ place after assuring her that he would speak to her husband and other members of her family not to harass the deceased. He further stated that he implored respondents No.2 and 3 that he was a poor man and cannot give anything worthwhile in the dowry and they should not ill-treat his daughter. They assured him that they would not subject the deceased to cruelty any longer. On return from the in-laws of the deceased, he talked to a friend named Kanshi Ram and told him that he could not give anything to his daughter in dowry at the time of her marriage and her in-laws were now demanding television and other items. He stated that he treated Kanshi Ram as his brother, who told him that only 10 months had passed since the marriage and that he would make some arrangement to give television etc. to the in-laws of his daughter. In cross examination, he stated that in regard to alleged harassment, he only told Kanshi Ram and did not even discuss with any of his relatives. He admitted that when the talks for the marriage were going on, he told the accused that he was a poor man and unable to give dowry. The in-laws of the deceased stated that they had everything and they were not after dowry. In cross examination he also stated that his daughter had been subjected to physical torture four times after her marriage. His daughter came to his place all alone and complained to him about the torture. He further admitted that respondent No.1 used to accompany his daughter to his place whenever they invited him. Respondent No.1 never had any talk with him or his wife about the dowry. The next witness is PW-7 Ajudhya Devi, mother of the deceased, who stated that their daughter visited their house 3-4 times and every time she complained that her in-laws tortured her and demanded television and refrigerator. She further stated that last year in the month of Jeth, her daughter visited their place. She had a stitched wound on her head. There were six stitches on the wound. On inquiry, the deceased told that her husband Sumer Singh hit her on the head with a bottle which resulted in the said wound. The statement of her husband showed that he had got the injuries stitched, whereas the statement of this witness (PW-7) shows that the wound was already stitched and there were six stitches on the wound. She did not mention as to when the demand for television and refrigerator was made and she only stated that this demand was made by respondents No.2 and 3. She also stated that she did not tell anybody that the accused demanded dowry and harassed her daughter to press the demand. In cross examination, she came up with another plea that once the deceased had shown her hand and feet, which were swollen due to the beatings given by the accused, which fact was never alleged by PW-1 Mahijit Singh or stated by him in the court. PW-7 Ajudhya Devi came up with the plea that Gurdev witness was at their place when the deceased told about the demand of television and refrigerator, which fact was never stated by PW-1 Mahijit Singh. She came up with another plea that at the time of marriage also, the accused had demanded dowry, namely, television and refrigerator, which fact was never stated by her husband who appeared as PW-1. She came up with the plea that respondent No.2 had come to their place to demand television and refrigerator even before marriage, which demand was made from her and her husband. It was never stated so by PW-1 Mahijit Singh. The next witness examined is PW-10 Jitender Kumar, brother of the deceased, who stated that once his mother told him that Anju Devi was being harassed for bringing insufficient dowry, which fact was never told to him by Anju Devi herself. He stated that he never visited the place of the accused after the marriage meaning thereby that he never lodged any protest that the respondents should not harass the deceased. He again came up with the plea that Anju Devi visited him at Bhoranj and complained to him about the harassment meted out to her for not bringing sufficient dowry and told him about the demand of television and refrigerator. He assured her that he would talk to her in-laws, but he did not have any talk with respondent No.1 about this harassment. The next relative examined is PW-8 Gurdev Singh, uncle of the deceased, who stated that once he visited Anju’s parents’ house and he found that Anju was having a stitch wound on her head. On inquiry, he learnt that she had been hit by her husband and the wound had to be stitched. She also told that the respondents were demanding refrigerator and television as dowry items and tortured her. In cross examination, he came up with the plea that this disclosure was made by the deceased not at the place of her parents, as stated by him in his examination-in-chief, but at his place, where he was all alone when this disclosure was made. He did not state the month, year or the probable time when this complaint was made to him. He is living nearby the house of PW-1 Mahijit Singh, but surprisingly did not talk to the parents of the deceased about this disclosure made by the deceased. Coming to the testimony of other witnesses, the prosecution had examined PW-9 Kanshi Ram, a neighbour of PW-1 Mahijit Singh. He stated that after about 6 months of the marriage, Mahijit Singh told him that the deceased was harassed by her in-laws for not bringing sufficient dowry. He stated that he told him to contact respondent No.2, father-in-law of the deceased, and to plead with him that he was a poor man and was unable to meet their demand for more dowry. He stated that he met respondent No.2 alongwith Mahijit Singh, who came to their house and he was assured by Roop Singh that the deceased would not be harassed. This fact was never stated by PW-1 Mahijit Singh that he went to the house of this witness alongwith respondent No.2 and this assurance was given by respondent No.2. He further stated that he never visited the place of accused after the marriage. He also came up with the plea that Anju Devi had complained to him about the harassment when she met him at the place of her parents but none else was present there. Moreover, he never stated that he gave any assurance to provide television and refrigerator, as stated by PW-1 Mahijit Singh in his statement. The next witness is PW-11 Nirmala, who was the mediator in the marriage. She clearly stated that she had told the parents of the accused Sumer Singh that the parents of the girl were poor and were unable to give dowry to their expectations. They responded that they wanted only a good girl and not the dowry. She stated that 15-20 days before her death, the deceased came to her and told her that she had been given beatings by respondent No.1. She did not see any wound or injury on the head of the deceased. She also did not tell as to why she had been given beatings by Sumer Singh. In case she was complaining about some injury, as stated by the parents of the deceased, it was an injury on the head to which six stitches were applied and that injury would have been quite visible to her. She is referring to this injury inflicted 15-20 days prior to the death while the parents have referred to the injury on the head one month prior to her death. Thus, there is no corroboration to the statement of the parents of the deceased by this witness in regard to the injury. She further stated that the girl had told her that whenever there was a marriage in the neighbourhood and there were television and refrigerator in the dowry, the accused used to say that the people have been giving such items in dowry normally, but she did not say that the accused demanded television and refrigerator. She further stated about the injury that the deceased had not told her about the weapon used to inflict the wound. The next witness examined is PW-12 Nirmala Devi, who stated that she had gone to take water from the water source and she saw Sumer Singh and his wife working in their fields. Within her view, Sumer Singh hit the deceased with a Parain, a stick used to stir the bullocks. She stated that she had never disclosed this fact to any person that she had seen the aforesaid incident and when she had not told this fact to any person, how the police could know that she had witnessed the occurrence. Her statement shows that the blow was given with a Parain but has not stated the probable period, whereas the prosecution evidence led, as per the testimony of the parents of the deceased, is that the injury was inflicted with a bottle. Therefore, her statement is of no help to the prosecution. Apart from the above, the prosecution had examined PW-14 Mast Ram, who stated that he was in the dispensary at Samaila when the daughter-in-law of Master Roop Singh had died. He stated that Mahijit Singh was also present there. Roop Singh accused told Mahijit Singh that he was not at home and that in his absence his son happened to commit a wrongful act. Roop Singh apologized and begged pardon for the said act. He stated that he did not know the names of other persons present at that time when Roop Singh accused apologized. He admitted that the father of accused Roop Singh was his cousin. PW-15 is Suneharu Devi who had stated that she had gone to the house of the respondents and noticed that Sumer Singh’s wife was lying on the floor. She tried to find out as to what had happened but the deceased did not respond. He stated that respondent No.3, the mother of accused Sumer Singh, was not in her house on that day as she had gone to attend the marriage in Hamirpur District. Accused Roop Singh was also not in his house on that day. She further stated that she never saw the accused harassing, ill-treating or assaulting the deceased nor she heard the accused persons taunting the deceased that she had not brought sufficient dowry. She further stated that the distance between her house and that of the accused is hardly 30-35 yards. From the above discussion of the evidence, it is very much clear that there is no definite evidence on record that the deceased was maltreated or harassed for bringing insufficient dowry since the respondents were already told at the time of marriage that the parents of the deceased were poor and were unable to give any dowry. In regard to harassment, no specific instances have been mentioned or the specific periods have been stated by the witnesses except in regard to the injury on the head. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was got treated by her father at the local hospital and one prescription slip was sought to be proved in evidence but the same was not legally proved from the statement of any medical officer who may have issued the same or proved the signatures of the medical officer so that the said prescription slip (OPD chit), as referred to in the testimony of PW-4 Kundan Lal, could be linked with the deceased that for what purpose she had been taken to the hospital for treatment. The said evidence could have been easily produced by the prosecution since the OPD chit was taken in possession by the police but the said chit was never proved according to law by the person who may have issued the same or who could have stated about the treatment given to the deceased, if any. Moreover, the father of the deceased PW-1 Mahijit Singh clearly admitted that no complaint was ever made to any person or Panchayat or Police in regard to the maltreatment, except about one occurrence complained to PW-9 Kanshi Ram, as discussed above. It is true that the parents of the deceased are poor persons, as stated by them, but it never prevented them from lodging the complaint with the Panchayat or police once the deceased had been hit on the head and had serious wound on her head to which six stitches had to be applied. The learned trial Court has referred to the evidence in detail, which has also been referred to by us and we are inclined to agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the prosecution evidence does not establish that the deceased was maltreated due to bringing of insufficient dowry by her. The learned trial Court has also referred to the disclosure statement made by the accused leading to the recovery of the tube and the contradictions therein, which are not very material since this fact stands established that the deceased had died of poisoning as per the medical evidence and the report of the expert, but that is not a proof that this poison was administered by the respondents or that the charge under Section 304-B stood proved. After due appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. October 22, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.