IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 55/1995 Date of decision: 18. 8. 2009 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Premi Devi and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 6.4.1994 of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby respondent Machlu Ram, father-in-law, Premi Devi, mother-in-law and Pratap Chand, husband of deceased Pano Devi have been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for which they were tried. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - Prosecution case, as per evidence adduced before the trial court is like this. Deceased Pano Devi and her sister PW-6 Deekhnu Devi were married to two sons of respondent Machlu Ram and Premi Devi. Deekhnu Devi was married to PW-4 Gian Chand, the elder son of respondent Machlu Ram and respondent Premi Devi and deceased Pano Devi was married to respondent Partap Chand. Soon after marriage, Deekhnu Devi was sent to her in-laws’ place by her parents. However Pano Devi, being of tender age, remained at her parents’ place for about two years, after the marriage. She came to her in-laws’ place, i.e., the respondent’s place only ten days prior to her death. The date of her death is 6.5.1993. On 5.5.1993, marriage of one Karam Chand alias Karmu took place in the village of the respondents. Name of their village is Satnala. Mother of deceased Pano Devi, namely, PW-7 Katoro Devi came to attend that marriage. Respondents and deceased Pano Devi also attended that marriage. It appears that in the evening respondents and the deceased returned to - 3 - their place from Karmu’s house, but the deceased again accompanied her mother Katoro Devi to the house of Karmu. This annoyed the respondents. PW-14 Jhannu, a cousin of Machlu Ram happened to be at his place when respondents were expressing their annoyance over the deceased having accompanied her mother again to the house where the marriage was going on. He had come from another village to attend the said marriage. He went to karmu’s place and told Katoro Devi PW-7, mother of Pano Devi, why she had brought the deceased to the house of Karmu without respondents’ permission. Upon that, deceased was sent back to her in-laws’ house immediately. Respondents had started quarreling with the deceased soon after she came to their house to join her husband (respondent Partap Chand) about ten days prior to her death. The cause of quarrel was that respondents felt that the deceased shirked work. On 6.5.1993 around 6 a.m. when Katoro PW-7 went to the house of the respondents, she saw Premi Devi respondent serving tea to all the family members. - 4 - However, Pano Devi deceased was not served tea. Katoro Devi also took tea at the place of the respondents. It is alleged that Pano Devi was served tea much later and some poisonous substance was added to that tea. Thereafter, all the three respondents allegedly carried the deceased to a precipice and threw her down. At that time, deceased’s sister Deekhnu PW-6 was not at home. Mother of the deceased had also left the respondents place for the house of her husband’s sister by that time. Dead body of the deceased was spotted down the precipice around 9 a.m. on 6.5.1993. One Changar Ram went to the village of the parents of the deceased and informed deceased’s uncle PW-2 Prithi Pal about the death of Pano Devi. Prithi Chand accompanied by Chuni Lal PW-8, father of the deceased and one Shankar went to village Satnala, where the respondents resided. They reached village Satnala around 9 or 10 p.m. and stayed for the night at the house of a neighbour of the respondents. Next morning, they went to the site where dead body was lying. - 5 - Prithi Pal accompanied by Gian Chand PW-4, a son of respondents Machlu Ram and Premi Devi and brother of respondent Pratap Chand went to the Police Station at Bharmour and lodged the report. Case was formally registered. Police went to the spot and conducted inquest. Dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem examination. PW-1 Dr. O.P. Puri conducted post-mortem examination and noticed following ante mortem injuries:- 1. Rigor mortis was present. There was a lacerated wound over forehead 2”x 1 ½ bone fracture was present, bone piece about 1”x ½” was missing. 2. There was purplish colouration of back lower half and buttocks of size 2 feet x 6 inches. 3. There was fracture of cervical vertibare and dislocation was present. 4. Left lower jaw was lacerated, wound was present of 1/3” x 1/3”. Lower bone of the jaw was fractured. 5. There was bruise over left upper arm of size 2” x 2” X1” colour was blackish blue. No ligature marks were present over neck. On opening the skull, a lacerated wound over the forehead 1 ½ “ x 1” was noticed. Spinal cord and membranes were found damaged. Thorax and right lung had collapsed. Both the lungs were blackish - 6 - blue in colour. Heart was empty and intact. Black dark purplish blood was present in the mouth. Stomach was echymosed. Small intestine was pinkish in colour and large intestine was bluish. Lever was blackish. Spleen was injured and bleeding was present. Its colour was purplish. Time lag between the injury and the death was opined to be between five minutes and one hour and between the death and post-mortem 48 hours to 5 days. Post- mortem examination was conducted on 8th May, 1993. Viscera was preserved and sent to Chemical Examiner, who found organocholoro insecticide in the intestine, lever, spleen and kidneys. On the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, PW-1 gave the opinion that the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure, caused by organocholoro insecticide and ante-mortem injuries noticed by him. All the three respondents were arrested on 14.5.1993. Respondent Premi Devi made a disclosure statement leading to discovery of a packet of tit powder from her cow-shed. The powder weighed 600 - 7 - grams. Sample weighing 50 grams was separated. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner vide report Ext. PX opined that the contents of sample were of organocholoro insecticide. During the course of trial, prosecution examined 22 witnesses. According to prosecution, Gian Chand PW-4 had witnessed respondent Premi Devi administering poison mixed with tea to the deceased and then all the three respondents carrying the deceased to a precipice and throwing her down and he disclosed this fact to his wife Deekhnu Devi PW-6. Gian Chand PW-4 did not support the prosecution version. Deekhnu Devi, however testified that Gian Chand had told her that the deceased had been done to death by the respondents in the aforesaid manner. Trial court did not believe the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondents. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the evidence. - 8 - From a careful reading of the evidence, we feel that the prosecution had not been sure how and in what manner death of Pano Devi took place. So it kept on changing its stand. Its initial version was that the deceased was not allowed to attend the marriage of Karm Chand alias Karmu despite her mother having approached the respondents in this behalf. It came in evidence that the deceased had attended the marriage and the respondents had also actively participated and attended that marriage. The then prosecution changed its stand and tried to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by being called haraami which the witnesses have explained to mean ‘work-shirker’ and that on 6.5.1993 when deceased expressed her desire to go to her parents’ place in the company of her mother, PW-7 Katoro, she was not allowed to go. Reference in this behalf may be made to the testimony of PW- 6 Deekhnu Devi. PW-6 Deekhnu Devi, a sister of the deceased, married to brother of the husband of the deceased, testified that she and the deceased were married, on the - 9 - same day, to the two sons of respondents Machlu Ram and Premi Devi and that soon after the marriage, she came to her in- laws’ place and that from the very beginning, respondents had been cursing her and calling her haraami (work-shirker) and that they started using the same term for her deceased sister Pano Devi also, who came to the matrimonial home about ten days before her death. Even if we assume that the deceased was called work-shirker that would not mean that she was subjected to cruelty of such a degree that she could have been driven to commit suicide. As a matter of fact, it is admitted by Deekhnu Devi herself that coming of the deceased to matrimonial home was celebrated and feast was served to the relatives and residents of the village. Deekhnu Devi did not witness anything herself. According to her, it was her husband PW-4 Gian Chand, who told her that the deceased had been administered poison and then carried to precipice and thrown down. Gian Chand turned hostile. He denied having witnessed the alleged - 10 - incident. He also denied having told his wife PW-6 Deekhnu Devi that deceased had been put to death by the respondents. From a reading of the evidence, it appears that story about the administration of poison to the deceased by Premi Devi has been concocted and the evidence created. PW-7 Katoro Devi stated that on 6.5.1993 when she went to the house of the respondents, Premi Devi served tea to all the members of the family and also to her (the witness) but not to the deceased. This statement, she appears to have made to give an impression that tea was deliberately not served to Pano Devi because poison was intended to be added to her tea and that it was served to her after she and other members of the family had left. Her statement that tea was served by Premi Devi respondent is falsified by her daughter’s statement PW-6 Deekhnu Devi, who testified that Pano Devi deceased herself had prepared the tea and served it to all the family members. When Pano Devi had served tea to others, it cannot be said that respondent Premi Devi did not serve tea to her as she wanted to - 11 - serve it later to her by adding poison. Thus, the story is falsified by prosecution’s own evidence. Deceased was a young girl of 21 only. Her marriage with respondent Partap Chand had taken place two years before her death. After the marriage, she remained at her parents place and joined her in- laws only ten days prior to her death. On a day prior to her death, her mother visited her in-laws’ place in connection with the marriage of one Karmu. Deceased, per testimony of Deekhnu PW-6 insisted on going to her parents’ place in the company of her mother. Respondent did not permit her to go. The reason would have been that it was only ten days back that she had come to stay at her in-laws’ place. It appears that this angered the deceased and she took the poison. We find from the evidence on record that the salwar of the deceased was not tied to her waist and in fact upper portion of the salwar had slipped down up to knees. Inquest report Ext. PB shows that the human excreta was also noticed around the bottom of the dead body. These - 12 - facts suggest that after consuming poison, the deceased felt urge to pass stool. In villages, people normally go to nearby fields or forests to ease themselves. Deceased probably fell down the precipice while passing stool and the cause of fall could have been giddiness and weakness caused by consumption of poison. Dr. PW-1 O.P. Puri stated that injuries noticed on the dead body could have been sustained as a result of fall from a height. Mere recovery of tit powder which is organocholoro insecticide, at the instance of respondent Premi Devi, does not prove that she administered the said insecticide to the deceased. These kind of insecticides are usually available in the houses and cow-sheds of agriculturists and senior members of the house-hold are aware of the exact location thereof. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh),J. August 18, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)