IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1998 Date of decision : February 26, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Kishan Dev and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Rajender Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: M/s Onkar Jairath and Ashok Chaudhary, Advocates. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State by means of present appeal, under Section 378 Cr. P.C., has sought reversal of the judgment dated 3.10.1997 of learned Sessions Court, whereby respondents Kishan Chand and others, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 IPC, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, is like this. Deceased Saroj Kumari was married to respondent Kishan Dev about five years prior to her death, which took place on 5.7.1995. A male child was born out of the wedlock. Respondent Kishan Dev allegedly used to give beatings to the deceased after consuming liquor. Deceased used to complain about this behavior of respondent Kishan Dev to her father PW-1 Tarlok Chand. A year prior to her death, she went to her father’s place and complained that respondent Kishan Dev was habitual of drinking and subjecting her to beatings, after consuming Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… liquor. Mater was brought to the notice of PW-2 Rajinder Kumar, Pardhan of the Panchayat, in the presence of PW-3 Chhaju Ram. Respondent Kishan Dev was advised by PW-1 Tarlok Chand, father of the deceased, not to torture or harass the deceased. There had been no complaint of torture or harassment thereafter. 3. On 5.7.1995, the deceased allegedly consumed aluminium phosphide and died. On the next following day, her dead body was consigned to flames without postmortem and even before the arrival of her father PW-1 Tarlok Chand. A day before committing suicide, deceased allegedly went to PW-5 Bishan Dass and informed him that she was going to commit suicide, because her husband ill-treated and harassed her. Police conducted the investigation and challaned the respondents. 4. Respondent Kishan Dev was alleged to have subjected the deceased to cruelty and forced her to commit suicide and also to have destroyed the evidence by cremating the dead body without informing the police. Other respondents were charged with the offence of destroying the evidence by assisting respondent Kishan Dev, in consigning the dead body to flames. 5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined a number of witnesses. It mainly relied upon the testimony of PW-1 Tarlok Chand, father of the deceased, PW-2 Rajinder Kumar and PW-3 Chhaju Ram, other material witnesses, namely PW-4 Himmat Singh, PW-5 Bishan Dass and PW-6 Bahadur Singh having turned hostile. …3… 6. Trial Court concluded that the evidence on record did not prove the charge. Consequently, it acquitted the respondents. 7. We have gone through the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel, representing the respondents. 8. Father of the deceased, namely PW-1 Tarlok Chand, himself admitted in the cross-examination that the deceased and respondent Kishan Dev had been living happily and that often he (the witness) visited the respondent’s place and used to enjoy liquor in the company of respondent Kishan Dev. He did not say that after consuming liquor in his company, respondent Kishan Dev ever gave beating to the deceased. Also, he stated that it was only once and that too a year prior to her death that the deceased complained that she was beaten up by her husband after consuming liquor and that she never complained about alleged beatings prior to or subsequent to that. PW-2 Rajinder Kumar and PW-3 Chhaju Ram also stated that it was a year prior to the death of Saroj Kumari that it was brought to their notice that respondent Kishan Dev used to ill-treat her after consuming liquor. 9. In view of the above stated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J February 26, 2010(ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J