IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 626/1996 Reserved on: 21.4.2010 Decided on: 29.4. 2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Jagat Ram and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Per Rajiv Sharma, J. State has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 24.7.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1995, whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that marriage between Meera Devi and respondent No.2 was solemnized 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . No. 2 according to the customs of the area. Meera Devi is alleged to have committed suicide by jumping into Satyar Khud alongwith her two children. Father of the deceased Meera Devi made a statement under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Ex.PA. The police registered the FIR Ex.PW-9/A for offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. PW-1 Tej Ram has deposed in his statement under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that his daughter was harassed by the respondents for bringing dowry of poor quality. She was not provided with the basic necessities of life by the respondents. The matter was investigated by the police and the challan was put up in the Court after completing codal formalities under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Material witnesses are PW-1 Tej Ram, PW-2 Niki Devi, PW-3 Parwati, father, mother and aunt of the deceased, respectively, and PW-7 Mahantu. Respondents were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence of the respondents is that they had great love and affection for the deceased and they did not torture the deceased in any manner. The learned trial court acquitted the respondents. 4. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. 5. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 3 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 is Sh. Tej Singh. He has categorically testified before the Court that the deceased has never complained about being maltreated by her-in-laws when his daughter was alive. It was only after her death he was informed by his wife that the respondents used to torture her. He has further deposed that his wife had told him that respondent Chaman Lal used to give beatings to Meera Devi whenever he visited his house from Kullu at the instance of other respondents. He has further deposed that he was apprised by his wife that respondents never provided soap, oil, clothes etc. to his daughter and these items were provided by his wife. He has never made any complaint to the Panchayat or Police about the maltreatment of his daughter because he was apprehensive that it would lead to further torture of his daughter. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of engagement of Meera Devi, respondents did not demand any dowry. 8. PW-2 Nikki Devi is the mother of deceased. She has deposed that her daughter was not provided with proper food, clothes etc. and these basic items were provided by her. In her cross-examination, she has stated that whenever her daughter complained to her during her lifetime, she discussed the matter with her husband. She has also admitted that no specific demand was ever raised by the accused about the dowry after her marriage. 4 9. PW-3 Parwati is the real aunt of deceased. She has deposed that she was admitted in the hospital and while sitting in the compound, she was told by one lady that Meera Devi was beaten up by Damodari. The lady also told her that food was not provided for four days to the deceased. She has further deposed that the lady informed her that Meera Devi was maltreated on account of bringing less dowry. PW-5 is Roshan Lal. He has deposed that Meera Devi met him in village Chimnu in the marriage of his relations. Meera Devi told her about the maltreatment. PW-6 is Barfi Devi. She has deposed that she met respondent Damodari Devi and Damodari Devi started quarreling with Nikki Devi. 10. PW-7 Mahantu is the only eye witness. He has testified that he saw a lady having two children and a trunk with her. She threw her trunk into the river and then pushed her two children and thereafter she also jumped into the Khud. He narrated this fact to Raghu, Panchayat Member. He has admitted that he was 2000 yards away when he saw lady jumping into the rivulet with her two children. 11. PW-10 Dr. B.R. Chauhan has conducted the postmortem. According to PW-10, child died of asphyxia due to injury and drowning. PW-10 has also conducted postmortem of the dead body of Meera Devi. He has opined the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning and head injury. 12. There are inherent contradictions in the statements of PW-1 Tej Ram and PW-2 Nikki Devi. PW-1 Tej Ram, father of the 5 deceased, has categorically stated that he was told by his wife about the maltreatment and torture of his daughter after one month of the death of the deceased. However, PW-2 Nikki Devi has deposed that as and when her daughter used to make complaint about the behaviour of respondents, the matter was discussed with her husband. PW-1 has admitted that at the time of her engagement, respondents did not demand any dowry. PW-2 has also admitted that at the time of engagement, there was no demand of dowry and the respondents accepted whatever was given by them. Statement of PW-3 Parwati cannot be relied for the simple reason that she did not know even the name of lady who told her that Meera Devi was maltreated by the respondents. Statement of PW-5 Roshan Lal also does not inspire confidence. He had only met her only on two-three occasions. Statement of PW-6 Barfi Devi is equally vague. She has admitted in her cross- examination that deceased did not disclose the reason for her maltreatment by her in-laws. PW-7 Mahantu is the sole eye witness to the incident. He had seen lady jumping into the rivulet with two children. He had seen the incident from a distance of 2000 yards away. It is difficult to believe that he could recognize the lady, who jumped into the rivulet from a distance of 2000 yards. It is also intriguing to note that if the deceased had to commit suicide why she had carried the box. It has also come in the evidence that none of the family members of the deceased Meera Devi had ever made any complaint to the Police or 6 Panchayat about the beatings and harassment caused to the deceased by the respondents. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, the view taken by the learned trial court is supportable by the evidence and there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents/accused stand cancelled. (Deepak Gupta), J. (Rajiv Sharma), J. 29.4. 2010 *awasthi*