IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No. 209 of 1997. Decided on: 16.8.2010. ___________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Ram Dass and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G.. For the respondent : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ R.B. Misra, J. (Oral). The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted, under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., in reference to the impugned judgment, dated 6.1.1997, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1995, acquitting the respondents-accused for the alleged offence, under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC.. 2. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. The prosecution story which emerges from the evidence, led before the trial court is that on 13.9.1991, complainant Premi Devi reported that her sister-in-law Lachhmi Devi was married to Amar Singh accused about 10-11 years back and the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 accused persons had been giving beatings to Lachhmi Devi and because of the beatings, she committed suicide in November 1988. After investigation, accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and were committed to the Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses, whereas in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have denied the prosecution case. 4. PW1 Premi Devi complainant has stated that whenever, Lachhmi Devi, the ‘Nanad’ of PW1 visited her parental house, she used to tell that her husband Amar singh, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law had been torturing her, giving her beatings and calling her bad names. On 14.11.1988, she was beaten and was hanged with ‘Dupatta’ to the branches of a tree and when her brother, Sher Singh reached the house of the accused, the dead body of deceased Lachhmi Devi had been brought to the road. 5. PW2 Roshan Lal has stated that from 1991 to 1995, he was Member, Gram Panchayat and whenever Lachhmi Devi was beaten, PW2 used to console her and ask the family members of her parents-in-law not to behave so. 6. PW3 Tulsi Ram has stated that Lachhmi Devi, on her visit, had been complaining about the maltreatment. PW4 Prem Dass also noticed Lachhmi Devi weeping on maltreatment and beatings given by her father-in-law. PW5 3 Surender Pal has stated that he also saw the accused abusing the victim. 7. PW6 Sher Singh, the brother of deceased Lachhmi Devi, has stated that he got information from the parents-in-law’s house that Lachhmi Devi had died, however, PW6 has not supported the prosecution case by stating that whenever Lachhmi Devi visited in his house, she never complained about maltreatment. 8. PW7 Durga Singh, PW9 ASI Ram Dass, PW9 ASI Uttam Singh have supported the prosecution case in discharge of their official duties. PW10 Dr. R.S. Jamwal has conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Lachhmi Devi and found injury on the neck and ligature mark of the victim mentioned in the report Ext. PL. 9. PW11 Rattan Chand has stated that he observed the accused giving beatings to Lachhmi Devi and also observed injury on the leg of Lachhmi Devi. It is not only accused Ram Dass but Kashmir Singh has also given beatings to her. 10. On analysis of prosecution evidence and material on record, as per testimony of PW1 Premi Devi complainant that Sher Singh, her brother-in-law, went to the house of accused on hearing the noise of Lachhmi Devi. PW1 has further stated that brother of Lachhmi Devi, who was examined as PW6 Shri Sher Singh, has categorically stated in the Court that when he went in the village, no injury was found 4 on the dead body and Lachhmi Devi had never made any complaint to PW6 regarding maltreatment or beatings given to her. PW6 is the real brother of deceased Lachhmi Devi. Prosecution has not been able to prove as to why PW6 being real brother has deposed falsely. PW1 and PW5 have not supported the medical evidence. PW1 Premi Devi has stated that on 14.11.1988 Lachhmi Devi was given beatings by the accused in the field. However, no injury except ligature mark was found in the post mortem report Ext. PA as made by PW10 Dr. R.S. Jamwal. 11. As per the testimony of PW9 ASI Uttam Singh, the statements were recorded by Dy.S.P. Kanshi Ram and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. were taken. In cross- examination, he deposed that 500 to 700 persons assembled on the spot and nobody stated regarding torturing or beatings given to the deceased. 12. The matter was reported after about three years and such delay in filing FIR also makes the prosecution case doubtful as the incident took place on 14.11.1988 and FIR was registered on 13.9.1991 and neither the Investigating Officer nor the complainant have endeavoured to give satisfactory explanation. 13. On analysis of the prosecution evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court has rightly found that the prosecution case is not reliable and in our considered view also, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its 5 case beyond any reasonable doubt or to bring home guilt to the accused. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. August 16, 2010. (cr)