IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.714 of 1996 Decided on : March 26, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Matti Devi …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. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) By means of the present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, State has sought reversal of the judgment of the trial Court, dated 18th October, 1995, whereby respondent Matti Devi, mother-in-law of deceased Anjana Devi, has been acquitted of the charge, under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Deceased Anjana Devi was married to Jyoti Prakash, a son of respondent Matti Devi, in November, 1992. On 4th March, 1993, she consumed Aluminum Phosphide and died. Mother of the deceased, namely Fulan Devi (PW-6), was informed by another son of the respondent, named Vijay Kumar. Mother of the deceased accompanied by her aunt PW-8 Bimla Devi went to the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… place of the respondent. She saw the dead body of the deceased. From there she informed some people of the village, telephonically. PW-7 Shashi Katoch alongwith 10- 12 young men of the village reached. At that time, preparations were being made for the cremation of the dead body. PW-7 Shashi Katoch and the young men accompanied him objected to it and insisted for postmortem. 3. Police was informed. PW-13 HC Satish Kumar reached the spot. He recorded statement Ex. PW-6/A of PW-6 Fulan Devi, mother of the deceased. As per this statement, respondent used to demand a television set and on account of non-meeting of that demand, the deceased used to subject the deceased to cruelty. Case was registered, under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, against the respondent. Dead body was subjected to postmortem. Viscera were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide report Ex. PB opined that there were traces of Aluminum Phosphide in the viscera. 4. Prosecution examined, during the course of trial, the mother of the deceased PW-6 Fulan Devi, PW-7 Shashi Katoch, PW-8 Bimla Devi, PW-9 Rajesh, a brother of the deceased, and PW-10 Dinu Ram, the father of the deceased, to prove the charge. 5. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution stated that the deceased was ever subjected to …3… cruelty or harassment or that she ever complained that she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondent or any other member of her in-laws’ family, though the mother of the deceased, PW-6 Fulan Devi, PW-8 Bimla Devi and PW-9 Rajesh did state that the deceased complained that her in-laws’ demanded television set, some cash, a wrist watch and some other items. Since there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment, the basic ingredient of the offence of cruelty, under Section 498-A and dowry death, under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, is lacking. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J March 26, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J