IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.65 of 1998 Decided on : March 12, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Bir Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 4th June, 1997 of the Sessions Court, whereby respondent Bir Singh, who was tried for offences, under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly subjecting his wife deceased Manghri Devi to cruelty and abetting her to commit suicide, has been acquitted. 2. Deceased Manghri Devi was married to the respondent about 8-9 months prior to her killing herself by hanging, on 28th June, 1995. Respondent allegedly used to harass the deceased and also subjected her to physical cruelty, because he was not happy with her being illiterate and also he wanted to marry again. 3. Matter was reported to the police by a brother of the deceased, namely Gulab Singh (PW-1). Police Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… conducted inquest. Dead body was sent to the hospital. Postmortem examination was conducted at IGMC, Shimla, by Dr. D.K. Ghosh (PW-14). He noticed ligature mark and no other external injury and opined that the cause of death was hanging by means of a rope. 4. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses, including PW-1 Gulab Singh, a brother of the deceased, PW-3 Loharu Ram, the father of the deceased, PW-5 Thakri Devi, the mother of the deceased, and PW-2 Lajju Ram, a maternal uncle of the deceased, to prove the allegation of mental cruelty and physical beating. 5. Respondent took the plea that the deceased had had an affair with a man by the name of Ram Dayal and wanted to marry him. He pleaded that the deceased was not happy with her marriage with him and that the marriage had been solemnized by her parents against her will and by use of force and because of that she took her life. 6. Trial Court acquitted the respondent holding that the case did not stand established beyond reasonable doubt. 7. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 8. No external injury, except ligature mark caused by hanging, was found on the dead body, per testimony of …3… PW-14 Dr. D.K. Ghosh as also postmortem report Ex. PW-14/A. The fact falsifies the deposition of PW-1 Gulab Singh that when he saw the dead body it bore injuries on the chest and the back and that that indicated that she had been subjected to beating, before she took her life. 9. It has been very categorically admitted by the father of the deceased, namely Loharu Ram, in his deposition as PW-3, that the deceased was married to the respondent against her will, though he denied that she was interested in marrying one Ram Dayal. PW-1 Gulab Singh, a brother of the deceased, also made similar admission. It has come in the evidence that about 14 days prior to her death, the deceased had visited her parents and was not prepared to go back to her husband, but the mother of the respondent took her back, assuring that nobody would nag or harass her. 10. As already noticed, there was no evidence of physical torture on the dead body. Also, there is no evidence that the deceased was harassed or subjected to physical or mental cruelty, after she had been taken to the matrimonial home by her mother-in-law, i.e. the mother of the respondent. Admission by PW-3 Loharu Ram, the father of the deceased, and PW-1 Gulab Singh, the brother of the deceased, in the cross-examination, that the deceased was not interested in marrying the respondent and was married …4… to him forcibly and against her will, suggests that she was unhappy with her marriage with the respondent, because she was not interested in marrying him, for the reasons best known to her. May be the reason was that she wanted to marry some other person, as suggested to the aforesaid brother and the father of the deceased, in the course of their cross-examination. In view of the abovestated position, we are of the considered view that the appeal does not deserve to be accepted. Hence, the same is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 12, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J