IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 396 of 1997 Decided on: 6.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Sant Ram & 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. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. For the respondents : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, 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 26.6.1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 1994, whereby respondents-accused have been acquitted for the offences, under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. According to the prosecution, Smt. Puni Devi, aged about 20 years was married with Balak Ram in the year 1992 in a temple without any dowry but after 2-3 months of marriage, her in-laws started maltreating and torturing her for not bringing dowry and on 20.6.1993 at 6.00 P.M. she commit suicide by jumping in a canal. In that respect, FIR No. 191/93 was lodged and after investigation, respondents-accused were charged for the aforesaid offences and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. Prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses, whereas the respondents-accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and presented one witness in defence. 4. Defence witness Tulsi Ram has very categorically stated that she was suffering by mental depression and because of that she commits suicide. Whereas, PW-1 Dr. Deepak Malhotra, who conducted post-mortem examination found the cause of death of victim (deceased) was by asphyxia due to drawing. 5. PW-2 HC Sita Ram, PW-3 LHC Sher Singh and PW-4 Inspector Hans Raj in their endeavour to support the prosecution case have rendered to the extend the roles assigned to them. 6. PW-6 Dhani Ram, the brother of the victim, who is complainant alongwith PW-7 Kaila Ram, father of the deceased have endeavour to support the prosecution case by saying that the victim after marriage was maltreated and was given beatings. 3 7. PW-9 Prem Lata has also stated that victim was her sister and she used to tell that she was unhappy with her father-in-law and mother-in-law as they were abusing and maltreating her. In these circumstances, the victim had committed suicide. 8. On the analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that PW-6 Dhani Ram, brother of the deceased, who is the complainant, PW-7 Kaila Ram, father of the deceased and PW-9 Prem Lata,, sister of the deceased have not mentioned about any incident of demand of dowry and have also not stated that for demand of dowry she was ever tortured. 9. PW-11 ASI Krishan Datt, who recorded the FIR and conducted the investigation has stated in cross-examination that Dhani Ram complainant never made statement before him that his sister was tortured by her in-laws on account of dowry. However, in court both PW-6 Dhani Ram, brother of deceased and PW-7 Kaila Ram, father of the deceased have stated that victim was maltreated and tortured by respondents-accused for bringing less dowry. As such, the version given in Court was a new story introduced at subsequent stage as earlier no complaint or no incident was ever told by the victim that she was ever tortured for bringing less dowry. Marriage was solemnized in temple without any dowry. As such, there is no allegation of demand of dowry, maltreatment and beating for dowry. None of the prosecution witnesses have indicated that on maltreatment or beating any complaint was ever made to police. Nothing is on record that victim was maltreated or was beaten. Abusing may be a normal feature in real life. However, 4 abusing with beating and maltreatment leading tenamounting cruelty is such that may be a cause of suicide. 10. On the analysis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge had rightly analyzed that specific demand of dowry, beating or maltreatment for demand of dowry was not proved by the prosecution. In our considered view, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. There is no scope of any interference with the judgment of the acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 11. Bail bonds, furnished by the accused-respondents, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 6, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)