1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.263 of 2000 Decided on November 26, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Saran Dass & anr ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG For the Respondents: Mr. D.N. Ronta, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge (Oral): The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 27.8.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, HP thereby acquitting the accused/respondent for the offences under Sections 304-B,498-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that Rama Devi, daughter of (PW-1) Toti Devi, was married with the accused Saran Dass and two daughters were borne from the wed lock of the deceased Rama Devi with Saran Dass. A few months prior to the death of Rama Devi, she had been residing separately in her maternal house. Smt. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 Toti Devi had received information from Rama Devi, the deceased, that the accused Saran Dass, i.e. husband of the deceased and his mother Subhadra had been maltreating the deceased for dowry. Being aggrieved of the maltreatment and demand of dowry, Rama Devi had poured kerosene oil and burnt herself on 7.6.1996 at about 11 am when no male member was present in her family. FIR was lodged and matter was investigated and the case was tried by learned Sessions Judge. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses, whereas, through his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC accused/respondent had denied the prosecution case. 4. Prosecution has examined (PW-1) Toti Devi, (PW-2) Lobhi Ram (PW-3) Molak Ram, (PW-4) Himati Devi, (PW-5) Suram Singh (PW-6) Amba Dutt (PW-7) Bharathi Devi, (PW-8) HC Ajit (PW- 9) ASI Narain Singh and (PW-10) Hans Raj. 5. PW-1 Toti Devi, mother of the deceased in her endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that Saran Dass and his mother had been treating her daughter Rama Devi with cruelty on the ground of insufficiency of dowry, more particularly on the ground that she had given birth to two daughters and not given birth to son. In view of the testimony of PW-1, her daughter was not prepared to reside with the accused person in his house, however, on her persuasion, she was forced to go to stay with them as PW-1 was not in a position to maintain them after the death of her husband, namely Babu Ram. PW-1 in her cross examination has 3 stated that her daughter Rama Devi was married to Saran Dass in the year 1991. 6. PW-2 Lobhi Ram, uncle of deceased, in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that Rama Devi, deceased was treated by the accused persons with cruelty and for insufficiency of dowry and for the reason that Rama Devi had given birth to two daughters not to a male child. As per the testimony of PW-2, he was informed by Lekh Raj, brother in law of the accused Saran Dass that Rama Devi had committed suicide and therefore, he rushed to the house of accused persons along with Molak Ram, Sunku Ram and Inder Singh. In cross examination, PW-2 has stated that it is correct that both the accused persons and also Paushu had been visiting PW-1 Toti Devi, mother of the deceased, prior to the marriage of Rama Devi with the accused Saran Dass and had been working in the holding of PW-1. In view of the testimony of PW-2, after the death of the husband of PW-1, she was not left with any income and the entire villagers had contributed at the time of marriage of deceased Rama Devi with the accused. In cross examination, PW-2 has stated that accused Saran Dass and his mother had not treated Rama Devi, deceased, with cruelty at any time in his presence or at his premises. 7. PW-3 Molak Ram, cousin of deceased, in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has also indicated the same ground that the accused persons were treating Rama Devi with cruelty on the ground of insufficiency of dowry. However, PW-3 had also stated that the accused Saran Dass had been saying that he shall perform 4 second marriage. In cross examination, PW-3 has stated that Rama Devi was educated upto 5th standard and Rama Devi had not written any letter regarding cruelty meted out to her to anyone including PW-3. PW-3 has further stated in cross examination that he had been visiting the house of accused persons and in his presence, the accused person had not treated Rama Devi with cruelty for any reason whatsoever. 8. PW-4 Himati Devi, aunt of the deceased, in an endeavour to support the prosecution case has also similarly stated that the accused persons had been treating Rama Devi with cruelty for insufficiency of dowry. PW-4 has also stated that Rama Devi had visited the house of PW-4 about months prior to her death and had complained against the accused persons, however, she was advised to return to matrimonial house. PW-4 in her cross examination has stated that the accused persons had not treated Rama Devi with cruelty in her presence. 9. PW-5 Suram Singh, PS Sundernagar and PW-6 Amba Dutt, Sub Inspector have endeavoured to support the prosecution case to the extent the role assigned to them by the prosecution. PW- 7 Bharati Devi, neighbour of the deceased, has stated that Kanta Devi, sister in law of the accused persons had rushed to her house and informed that the wife of accused Saran Dass has set herself on fire. PW-7, on hearing this, rushed to the house of accused person. No male member was found present at that time in the house of the accused person. On entering the room, PW-7 noticed that Rama Devi had set herself on fire and was found dead in the room, with her face on the ground. PW-7 had taken one bed sheet and had put 5 the same on the dead body of the wife of accused person. PW-7 further stated that when she reached the house of accused person, Man Singh and Dhanshewaru also reached there. In her cross examination, PW-7 has stated that the accused person and his wife had separated from the parents of the accused person after about six months of the marriage and PW-7 has categorically stated that she had not seen the accused person and his wife quarreling with each other. 10. PW-8, HC Ajit, PW-9 ASI Narain Singh and PW-10 Hans Raj, Inspector, in due discharge of their official duty, have endavoured to support the prosecution case to the extent role assigned to them. However, their testimonies are not material so far proving the demand of dowry, maltreatment and cruelty meted out to the deceased Rama Devi. 11. On appraisal of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that admittedly deceased Rama Devi had been residing separately along with her husband Saran Dass and she was educated upto 5th standard. However, she has not written any letter to the Panchayat or any of her relative or to the police about the maltreatment, cruelty or harassment of any kind having been given to her by the accused Saran Dass or his family members. PW-1 Toti Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-2 Lobhi Ram, PW-3 Molak Ram, PW-4 Himati Devi were interested witnesses and none of the interested witnesses including PW-7 Bharathi Devi have come forward to say that any kind of cruelty or maltreatment was made to Rama Devi, deceased. The cruelty, mal-treatment or demand of dowry, in view of the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, 6 are not proved. Undisputedly, the financial condition of Rama Devi was not good and her giving birth to two daughters solely could not be ground of harassment or maltreatment and could be indicative that she was compelled to burn herself on fire. No independent witness of the locality has come forward to support the prosecution saying that the accused persons had ever given cruelty, harassment to Rama Devi, deceased or demand of dowry from her was made. No act of accused was in close proximity to instigate the deceased to finish her life. 13. On appraisal of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, trial court has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. . In our considered view, prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the accused successfully. Therefore, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/ respondents, are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 26th November 2010 (Surinder Singh)J. (sl)