IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 46 of 1995 Date of decision: 14.11.2008 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Sito Devi and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. R.M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja , J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 23.2.1994, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 304-B I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 18.11.1989, at about 6.30A.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Rikhi Ram that he had married his two daughters Maya Devi with Roop Lal and second daughter Kamli with Mahender in the same family in the year 1986. It was alleged that on the previous night, at about 9.30 P.M., he received an information from one Ram Singh that his daughter Maya Devi was ill. He went to the house of in-laws accompanied by his brother Shiv 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Ram and nephew Nanku. When he reached there at about 1.00 during night time, he found that Maya Devi was already dead. It was alleged by him that earlier also his daughter used to complain that her mother-in- law respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 her husband, used to give her beatings that she has brought insufficient dowry and she should bring cash from her father or get some land transferred in their names, failing which, she will be killed. It was also alleged that on 15.11.1989 his daughter Kamli Devi had told him that Maya Devi had been given beatings by her husband Roop Lal and mother-in-law Sito Devi. He went to see her alongwith a Member Panchayat and it was found that Maya Devi was lying on the cot and when she was asked about the beatings, she only gestured but did not speak and the complainant and the Member Premu only advised the respondents and came back. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of learned trial Judge, who tried the respondents, leading to their acquittal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. We have been taken through the evidence of the relatives of the deceased whose statements can be said to be most material to decide the case. The first witness is PW-1 Rikhi Ram, complainant himself and the father of the deceased, who has stated that within one year of the marriage, Maya Devi used to complain to him that her husband and mother-in-law, respondents, were maltreating and harassing her for having brought insufficient dowry. She used to tell him that the respondents were compelling her that either she should bring a sum of 3 Rs.12,000/- from him or should get land transferred from him in her name . She also used to tell him that the accused gave beatings to her. He stated about the one occurrence only which had taken place three days prior to the death of Maya Devi when his younger daughter Kamli came to his house and told him that the accused had given beatings to Maya Devi. He took Prem Chand, a Member of Panchayat, with him and went to the house of the accused, where Maya Devi was lying on the bed in a precarious condition and was having marks of beatings on her person. On their asking, Maya Devi could not tell anything to them out of fear and due to her bad condition. However, he and Prem Chand advised the respondents that they should not maltreat and give beatings to Maya Devi. He returned to his house and Prem Chand went to his house. His behaviour looks to be abnormal that though his daughter was lying in a precarious condition having been given beatings, but he did not take any steps to either bring her to his house or to get her treated but he simply advised the respondents and came back to his house. On the third day, he learnt from Ram Singh that Maya Devi was ill and he went there alongwith his brother, nephew and others and Maya Devi was no more alive. Then he lodged the report Ext. PA with the police. The material witness who could corroborate this version of father of the deceased was the said Member of Panchayat, namely, Prem Singh. He has been examined as PW-4, who stated that three days prior to the death of Maya Devi, Rikhi Ram father of Maya Devi came to him and told him that accused Roop Lal and Sito Devi used to beat his daughters. He went with Rikhi Ram to the house of the accused and enquired from Maya Devi as to what has happened. She told him that she is being beaten by Roop Lal and Sito Devi and he advised them 4 not to beat Maya Devi. In cross-examination, he has stated that Rikhi Ram had told him that both his daughters were being beaten by the accused, which is contrary to the version of PW-1 Rikhi Ram, who stated about the beatings given to one daughter only and not to the other daughter married in the same family. He also further stated that younger daughter Kamli told him that she was not given beatings by any person. He further stated that Maya Devi came down from the upper storey of the house, touched his feet and embraced her father. He denied that Maya Devi had told her father that he should not come to her house on petty matters. This deposition is in contradiction to the version of PW-1 Rikhi Ram that the deceased was lying on the cot, was unable to speak and only gestured by signs. Whereas, this witness has stated that Maya Devi came down and touched his feet. He nowhere stated that Maya Devi was lying on the bed, was not able to talk or was having any injury marks on her person. He also stated that no talk regarding dowry demand took place in his presence nor Rikhi Ram disclosed about the demand of dowry. In case the father of the deceased was aware that this beating had taken place due to any demand of dowry, it was quite natural that he would have told this witness about this demand, which is not so. Thus, the statement of this witness is also in contradiction to the version of PW- 1 Rikhi Ram in regard to demand of dowry made at any earlier time or in regard to the previous beatings given to the deceased three days prior to her death. The third material witness is PW-2 Kamli Devi, younger sister of the deceased, who stated that respondent No.1 is her mother-in- law and she is married in the same family. She further stated that three days prior to the death of Maya Devi, she visited the house of her parents 5 to inform that Maya Devi had consumed poison and they should come to the house of her in-laws and asked Maya Devi about the same. The witness was declared as hostile and she was allowed to be cross- examined. She has come up with another plea that neither she went to her parents’ house three days prior to the death of Maya Devi nor she had made any complaint regarding the beatings given by the respondents, if any, but had complained that Maya Devi had consumed poison, which does not found corroboration from the statements of PW-1 Rikhi Ram or the testimony of PW-4 Prem Singh. She further stated that Roop Lal was not present in the house on that date, meaning thereby that there was no immediate provocation for the suicide. The learned Deputy Advocate General had submitted that statement of this witness cannot be believed particularly when she is married in the same family and is living there. We agree that neither her statement helps the prosecution nor it can be said to be against prosecution version since being married in the same family and living there, it is quite natural that she cannot depose against the respondents. However, this does not lead to the inference in the alternative that she has deposed falsely. The next material witness can be said to be PW-7 Shiv Ram, who has stated that when he was present in his house, one Ram Singh, came to him at about 9.30P.M. and told him that Maya Devi is seriously ill in the house of her-laws. He is the brother of PW-1 Rikhi Ram and had accompanied him and when they went there, Maya Devi was already dead. He stated in general only that he had a talk with Rikhi Ram and Maya Devi after the marriage of Maya Devi. Rikhi Ram had disclosed him that he had learnt from Maya Devi that the accused used to state that Rikhi Ram should pay either amount to them or give them some land as 6 Maya Devi had brought insufficient dowry. In cross-examination, he stated that he learnt about this fact from Rikhi Ram one year prior to the death of Maya Devi and Rikhi Ram had told him once in this regard. There is nothing about the amount demanded or the land which should be transferred in the name of Maya Devi or given to them. There is nothing that any complaint was lodged with the Panchayat in this regard or any steps were taken by the father of the deceased to visit the house of the respondents and advise them not to harass his daughter. This vague statement made by a close relative does not substantiate the prosecution version. The statements of other witnesses are not material. From the above discussion of the evidence of all the most material witnesses including relative of the deceased, it is clear that no case is made out so as to hold that it was a case of dowry death or the accused persons had been harassing or treating the deceased with cruelty in regard to their demand of dowry. The final findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said to be perverse in view of the evidence led by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge ( V.K. Ahuja ), November 14, 2008 Judge (BSS) 7