IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 195/2001 Date of decision: 4.3. 2011 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Charan Pal ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajinider Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Abhishek Sood, vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondent was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304 Indian Penal Code passed by the learned trial Court, which has been assailed by the State in the instant appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - 3. In short, prosecution case can be stated thus. Smt. Rajjo Devi was married to respondent about one year and nine months before her death. It is alleged that Chhitru Ram her father had only sole heir, i.e., the deceased. He executed a Will on 22.9.1997 of his property in her name but the respondent wanted the land to be mutated in his favour. Failing to get the land in his own name, he nourished ill-will against the deceased hence he treated her with cruelty. It is also the case of the prosecution that when she was in her family way, she was given beatings by the respondent. On the next day of Rakshabandhan, in the month of August, 1998, when her father had gone to see his daughter in her matrimonial home, respondent gave beatings to the deceased and turned her out along with her father and set the dowry articles on fire. 2. The matter was reported to the Pradhan of village Pipaliwala. The respondent admitted his fault and a good sense prevailed. He arrived at a compromise and undertook to restore the dowry articles and also agreed to keep the deceased well in his house. Thereafter the deceased joined the company of the accused. It is also alleged that so long as the deceased lived in the company of her - 3 - husband, he did not provide any medical treatment to her and also started torturing her. He is stated to have inflicted injuries during the intervening night of 15th /16th September, 1998, on account of which she died next morning, i.e., on 16.9.1998. 3. The matter was reported to the police. Police during the investigation collected the evidence against the respondent. The autopsy of the dead body was performed on 17.9.1998 by PW3 Dr. Sunita Mangla. She noticed the following injuries on her person:- (i) A contusion present on left upper eye-lid just below the left eye brow. Covering whole of eye lid-bluish in colour. (ii) Two contusions present on left thigh present on above the other 1 cm apart, each of size 2cmX1 cm present in the posterior aspect (bluish in colour). (iii) Contusion present on the dorsal aspect of right upper arm 5 cm X2 cm (bluish). (iv) Contusion present on neck above the thyroid cartilage size 5 cm X 2 cm (bluish in colour). 4. A dead female foetus of size 16 ½ weight 1.800 grams was found in her abdomen, however, there was no bleeding inside peritoneum. In the opinion of the doctor, deceased had died due to cardiac respiratory failure due to shock. Viscera - 4 - were sent for the chemical examination but no poison was detected. The probable time which elapsed between the injury and death could not be ascertained by the doctor. The time between death and post-mortem was opined to be 30-36 hours. Police also took into possession OPD sip Ext. PC issued by PW1 doctor Anveen Kaur who had examined her on 15.9.1998. She opined that the deceased was a patient of severe anemia having 2.9 mg HB and was carrying 8 months pregnancy. 5. On the conclusion of the investigation, police presented the case against the respondent under the aforesaid Sections in the trial Court. He was accordingly charge sheeted. He abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The stand taken by the respondent was complete denial of the prosecution story. According to him, he is poor labourer and is getting the deceased treated from time to time from the doctors after getting loan from near and dears. 7. When called upon to enter into his defence he examined DW 1 Dharam Dass and DW 2 - 5 - Gian Chand to prove the fact that the respondent belongs to poor family and he had no money for the treatment of his wife as such he approached DW 2 Gian Chand and borrowed Rs 2000/- for the treatment of his wife. 8. At the end of the trial, learned trial Court relied upon the defence taken and on the testimony of doctor, acquitted the respondent. 9. PW4 Chhitru Ram father of the deceased stated having visited his daughter after Rakshabandhan in the month of August, 1998 and stated that respondent gave beatings to his daughter and he along with his daughter was turned out from the room and ultimately he brought her to his village. He also stated having put dowry articles on fire by the respondent and matter was reported to PW8 Baljeet Singh Pradhan. But the entire matter ended into compromise Ext. PW2/A. PW8 Pradhan aforesaid categorically admitted in his cross examination that Smt. Rajjo Devi never complained against the accused, if he had committed any cruelty to her. But stated that when the compromise was being arrived at, she was reluctant to join the matrimonial home. Despite that she joined the company of the respondent. Except aforesaid - 6 - sporadic incident, no other instance of cruelty has been alleged and proved against the respondent. Regarding the injuries which were noticed at the time of the post-mortem by the doctor, no specific opinion whether these injuries were ante-mortem or post-mortem and probable time of these injuries was also unascertainable. Further, doctor categorically stated that the deceased could have also died because of extreme anemic condition which could lead to shock. Respondent is also stated to have provided medical treatment to the deceased and the deceased is proved to have been examined a day before her death by PW1 Dr. Anveen Kaur, as stated above. She also stated that the severe anemic condition of the deceased could cause death of the patient. Even father of the deceased admitted that her daughter was ailing however, he denied that respondent had been providing medical help to her which goes contrary to the facts proved. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure respondent has stated that he got his wife medically checked up thrice from the doctor owing to his poverty and even he had also sought loan from DW2 to the tune of Rs 2000/- for providing medical treatment to his wife. - 7 - Ext. DB and Ext. DE medical treatment cards also substantiate his defence. 11. Prosecution also relied upon the statement of PW7 Parkash Chand. He stated that during the intervening night of 15th and 16th September, 1998 at about 1.30 or 2 p.m. when he came out to urinate, he saw that light of the house of the respondent was on and Rajjo Devi was sitting on the cot whereas respondent was time and again going to her and returning. He did not know what was the cause, thereafter he retired to his bed. By this incident it cannot be said that respondent was either beating or torturing the deceased. Rather it has already come in evidence that she was ailing and possibility cannot be ruled out that during that time she was being provided much needed help and looked after by the respondent. 12. Against the aforesaid background, we are of the considered view that there is possibility of the death of deceased on account of shock because of her extreme anemic condition as she was having 2.9 grams of hemoglobin. The cause of such a shock resulting into her death was also not ruled out by both the doctors PW1 and PW3, namely, - 8 - Anveen Kaur and Sunita Mangla respectively. The foetus in her womb was also found dead. 13. In view of the above stated position, the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court could not be faulted with as it is borne out from the record. The appeal filed by the State sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. Respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any stage during the proceedings of this case. (R.B Misra), Judge March 4, 2011 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.