IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 637 of 2000 Decided on: 29.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Satya Devi & Ors. ..…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 27.7.2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 23-P/VII-99, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offences, under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, in reference to FIR No. 86/98, dated 20.3.1998. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The prosecution story is that Meera Devi, daughter of PW-1 Ramji Dass and PW-7 Guddi Devi, was married to Ashok Kumar respondent-accused in the year 1995, however, for the initial period of about one year she was nicely kept in her matrimonial house. Thereafter, some alleged maltreatment was being made against her. Meera Devi, victim/deceased, was having first son from the wedlock and whenever she used to come to her parental house, she used to made complaint about the maltreatment in the house of in-laws. It appears that second time she was carrying pregnancy and she had taken aluminium phosphide and died due to consuming poison. On complaint by PW-1, FIR Ext.PL, was lodged and respondents- accused were charged for the aforesaid offences and case was committed to Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses, whereas, the respondents-accused through their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. PW-1, Ramji Dass, father of the victim/deceased has stated that on demand of colour television, victim/deceased was being beaten by respondents-accused Satya Devi and Reeta Devi and when she came to the house of her parents 5-6 times, she was persuaded to go and live in her in-laws’ house. PW-7, Smt. Guddi Devi, the mother of the victim/deceased, however, did not remember that how many times Meera Devi came to her house and has not stated that any specific demand of television was made from her deceased daughter. 3 5. PW-2 Trilok Singh, Uncle of deceased stated that deceased told him 5-6 times that respondents-accused persons maltreated her regarding demand of dowry including television and cash. PW-3, Parkash Chand, maternal Uncle of deceased, also stated about the beatings and maltreatment given by respondents-accused as told to him by the victim/deceased. PW-6, Naina Devi (Bua) Aunt of the victim/deceased, also stated about the abuses being given by respondents-accused Satya Devi and Reeta Devi. PW-6 has also stated that victim/deceased met her 5-7 times and made complaints. 6. PW-5, Dr. S.K. Bhatia, conducted medical examination of victim/deceased on 19.3.1998 at 8.15 P.M. along with Dr. G.C. Sood and found that the cause of death was shock secondary to aluminium phosphide poison. However, no mark of ligature on the neck of the deceased (Meera Devi) was found. PW-10, SI Sukh Ram, PW-11, Constable Rajinder Singh, PW-12, ASI Joginder Singh, have endeavoured to support the prosecution case to the extent the roles assigned to them in their official capacity. 7. We find that no independent witnesses of the locality, nearby the house of in laws of the victim/deceased, was examined. All the independent witnesses are related to the victim/deceased. On scrutiny of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that for about one year i.e. from November 1995 to November 1996 and thereafter from December 1996 to 19.3.1998 victim/deceased was being maltreated for about 1¼ years, however, very surprisingly, on no occasion report of any kind was ever made in writing or orally 4 to the Panchayat or to the Police regarding maltreatment being meted out to the victim/deceased. It is also pertinent to note that victim/deceased was carrying pregnancy second time for which she wanted to go for abortion. However, such proposal was not liked by PW-1 Ramji Dass and PW-7 Guddi Devi, i.e. father and mother and in this reference victim/deceased did not appear to be happy as victim/deceased had revealed to her relatives that because of the age of first child she was not willing to go for second delivery. 8. On analysis of prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Ramji Dass and PW-7 Guddi Devi, it appears that before death, victim/deceased stayed for 4-5 days with her parents. PW-3 Trilok Singh has admitted that deceased stayed in her father’s house for 15 days and not for one month, whereas, Guddi Devi PW-7 also stated that victim/deceased stayed for 5-7 days only. Above facts clearly show that some time prior to death of victim/deceased, she had lived in the house of her parents and not in the house of her in-laws and she had come only 4-5 days ago in her in-laws house where she died. Therefore, such period cannot be treated to be sufficient that during that time only she could have been given maltreatment. 9. Analysis of prosecution witnesses reveal that other than related witnesses, no one has stated that the victim/deceased was ever maltreated or was beaten or tortured by the husband or his family members. The abetment is a necessary ingredient for the offence of suicide under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code in view of the decision in (1997) 4 Supreme 214, Sangarabonia Sreenu vs. State of Andhra 5 Pradesh. To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide, is necessary. Since the abetment is not revealed from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, it could not be inferred that respondents-accused, by their act or deed, had abetted the victim/deceased to commit suicide. In the absence of any ingredient of abetment, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is, therefore, dismissed. 10. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 29, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)