1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 341 of 1993. Date of decision: 01.5.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. Versus- Amin Chand. Respondent. ___________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General . For the respondent: : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral). State has appealed against the judgment of Sessions Court whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 302, 498-A and 201, I.P.C. Facts constituting the prosecution version may be summed up thus. Deceased Asha Devi was married to respondent Amin Chand in the year 1984. She gave birth to two sons, who were aged six and four in July, 1992 when she died of burn injuries. Respondent Amin Chand was employed at Chandigarh. His mother respondent Ajudhia Devi (now dead) started living with her daughters soon after the marriage of the deceased with respondent Amin Chand. On 10th July, 1992, respondent Amin Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 Chand visited his native place in Palampur area of Kangra District. On coming to know that Amin Chand respondent had come to the village, his mother Ajudhia Devi, now dead, also came to the village. On 12-7-1992, when Ajudhia Devi had gone to the fields, the deceased was allegedly beaten-up by respondent Amin Chand with a Darat and there-after kerosene oil was poured on her and she was set on fire. Deceased sustained 40% burn injuries. Respondent Amin Chand went to Harish Chander (PW10), a medical practitioner of Khaira and demanded Burnole from him. He did not have burnole available in his clinic. So he gave him sopharamicin. Respondent Amin Chand visited PW10 again on 13- 7-1992 with the request to visit his village and provide treatment to his wife who was having burn injuries. PW10 visited the respondents’ place. He was told by Ajudhia Devi, the deceased respondent, that her son be saved. He saw deceased Asha Devi with 40% burn injuries. He asked Asha Devi, who was conscious, as to what had happened but she kept quite. PW10 advised Amin Chand respondent to shift his wife to Palampur Hospital. Next day, i.e, on 14-7-1992, Amin Chand took the deceased to PGI Chandigarh where she died on 17-7-1992. She remained conscious till her death per testimony of PW18 Dr. Rajesh Atam who along-with other Doctors attended upon her at PGI. Post-mortem of the dead-body was conducted by PW19 Dr. C. Verma, Medical Officer of Government Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh. He found certain burn injuries. On her death, the injuries were opined to be second and third grade. The cause of death was opined to be septicemia following infected burns. 3 On 20-7-1992, FIR was lodged by PW1 Bishan Chand, an uncle of the deceased, that the deceased used to be harassed by respondent Amin Chand and his mother Ajudhia Devi. Police investigated the case. During the course of investigation, statements of residents of the village of the respondents were recorded who told that the deceased used to be subjected to beatings by respondent Amin Chand and his mother Ajudhia Devi. Police challaned both the respondents. They were charged and tried as aforesaid. Trial Court did not believe the prosecution evidence and acquitted respondent Amin Chand and his mother. State filed the appeal both against respondent Amin Chand and his mother. Ajudhia Devi is stated to have died during the pendency of the appeal. So the appeal, as against her, abates. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the counsel representing respondent Amin Chand and also gone through the evidence. Respondent Amin Chand and his mother had been socially boycotted by the residents of their village. This fact is testified by Premi Devi (PW2), Shyama Devi (PW3), Narpat Ram (PW4), Giano Devi (PW7) and Kunta Devi (PW8). The boycott of the respondents was so severe that respondent Amin Chand had to engage labourer to carry the deceased to the road-head on a cot, for being further taken to PGI Chandigarh. This fact is borne from the testimony of Narpat Ram (PW4) who stated that Amin Chand engaged some labourers to carry his wife on a cot to the road- head. All the above named witnesses have stated that they were 4 not on visiting terms with the respondents. It has also come in the evidence of the prosecution that because of social boycott, respondent Amin Chand had started constructing a new house at a distance of about one km from the village. Now when the residents of the village had socially boycotted the respondent and his mother and were not on visiting terms with them, their testimony about the alleged beating of the deceased cannot be believed for two reasons. Firstly, they could not have witnessed the alleged beatings because of their being not on visiting terms with the respondent and secondly, they being on inimical terms with the respondents, their testimony cannot be believed without corroboration. It has also come in the evidence that soon after the marriage of the deceased with respondent Amin Chand, his mother Ajhudhia Devi started living with her daughters at different places. Testimony of Narpat (PW4) proves this fact. Now when Ajudhia Devi had started living with her daughters soon after the marriage of the deceased with respondent Amin Chand, the story that she used to give beatings to the deceased cannot be believed. Testimony of PW1 Bishan Chand, the fahter’s brother of the deceased that the deceased used to visit her and stay with her for long spells of three to four months because of the beatings at the hands of the respondent and his mother Ajudhia Devi is falsified by the testimony of his wife Kunta Devi (PW8) who has stated that the deceased visited their place only once or twice and stayed only for a day or two. Bishan Chand PW1 says that deceased complained to her about the beatings for the first time before the 5 birth of her second child, but Kunta Devi stated that she complained for the first time eight or nine months after the delivery of the second child. Again, Bishan Chand (PW1) stated that deceased visited him last in the month of February or March (Falgun) 1989 but PW8 Kunta Devi stated that she visited them last when her second child was eight-nine months old. Second child of the deceased was aged two years at the time of her death, meaning thereby that she last visited her uncle and aunt in the year 1988. Evidence on record shows that deceased had been conscious right up-to the time of her death. Incident took place on 12-7-1992. Initially she was attended upon by Harish Chander (PW10) on 13-7-1992. He enquired of her as to what had happened but she did not say anything. Then she was at P.G.I. from 14-7-1992 to 17-7-1992. There also she did not inform anybody that she had been beaten up by respondent Amin Chand and then set on fire. She died on 17-7-1992. Her father was informed about her death and he reached PGI on the same day, i.e, 17-7-1992. No explanation has been offered by the Police why report was not lodged with the Police immediately after the occurrence or at- least when PW9, the father of the deceased came to know about the death and reached PGI on 17-7-1992 per his own statement. Already noticed F.I.R. was lodged on 29-7-1992. Record of PGI comprising of papers Exhibit P18/A, PW18/B and PW18/C shows that the Doctors were told at the time of admission of the deceased at PGI that she had sustained the 6 injuries when a burning lamp fell on her when she was trying to light a stove. Neither the Doctors who attended upon the deceased at the PGI nor the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, namely, PW19 Dr. C. Verma, noticed any injury on the person of the deceased having been caused by some weapon like Darat or other object. Only burn injuries were found on the person of the deceased by Dr. Harish Chander (PW10) and the Doctors of the PGI who treated her. PW19 Dr. C. Verma, who conducted the post-mortem examination also found only burn injuries on the dead-body. The fact belies the story of the prosecution that the deceased was first caused injuries with a Darat and then set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. There is evidence on record showing that respondent tried to extinguish the fire caught by the deceased. He was got medically examined from Dr. S.P. Chauhan (PW16) who noticed several injuries on his fingers. He opined that the injuries could have been sustained while extinguishing fire, caught by another person. In view of above said position, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. May 1, 2008. (bm) 7