IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.649 of 2002 Date of decision: 27.09.2011 State of H.P. … …Appellant Versus Partap Chand … …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.Puneet Rajta, Advocate vice Mr.Rajneesh Maniktala, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The respondent has been acquitted for offences under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC who has been charged for abetting the suicide of his wife Sarita Devi with whom he was married in the year 1992. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Savita Devi was daughter of PW-7 Shri Amar Singh and PW-3 Rameshan Devi. The respondent is working with the Mahavir Spinning Mill Limited at Hoshiarpur. After his marriage, he separated from his brother and was living with his mother, who has also since died, and his wife. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 The prosecution alleges that after about two years of his marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruel treatment which ultimately forced her to commit suicide. The prosecution case is that on 30.11.1998, Mansha Devi, Bhabhi (sister-in-law) of deceased Sarita at about 7.30 a.m. in the morning heard son of Sarita crying and she sent her daughter Puja to find out the reason who informed her that boy is crying in the upper storey of the house. Mansha inquired about Sarita from the neighbours etc. but she got no information. Then in the presence of Bibo Devi and Rita Devi, who were going for tailoring classes, took out the boy from the window of the room which was locked from inside. She then informed Pradhan and Up-pradhan. Mansha Devi alongwith Pradhan conveyed this information to Police Post, Bhawarna. The police visited the spot and inspected the upper storey of the house, entered the room with the help of ladder and found the deceased hanging from a beam in the ceiling of the room. After investigation, the respondent was charged for having abetted the suicide of the deceased which was alleged to be the result of continued cruel treatment. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure admitted the factum of marriage with the deceased and that he had one son aged about 8 years, but had denied all other allegations. In short, the prosecution case is based on the statement Ex.PW-3/A made by PW-3 Rameshan Devi in which she states that 3 initially the deceased was treated well by the accused, but later on she was subjected to cruel treatment inasmuch as she was not given enough food, clothing etc. She states that the accused had separated from his brother, she had seen them quarreling and stating that the deceased could go wherever she liked, whereafter he would get married again. On 15.11.1998, while leaving for his place of work at Hoshiarpur he told her that he would not return, at which the deceased became morose. When the mother-in-law of the deceased died, she had visited his house and asked him as to why he used to quarrel with his wife, he replied that after six months the deceased would be a widow. This in nutshell is the case of the prosecution. 3. In order to prove its case reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the evidence of PW-3 Rameshan Devi. Adverting to the evidence of this witness, we find that she states in her examination-in- chief that the accused was serving in a Yarn Manufacturing Unit at Hoshiarpur. After marriage, the deceased was treating her well for two years, whereafter he started maltreating her. He did not provide proper food and clothing to her. 4. When she had visited his house on the death of his mother, six months prior to time when Sarita committed suicide, she confronted him with the fact as to why he was mistreating her daughter. Instead of answering the query he picked-up a quarrel with her. 4 She then makes a startling statement that on the day when Sarita had committed suicide, he had mixed poison in the food of his son who became unconscious. In cross-examination she admits that the accused had separated from her brother at the instance of the deceased, he was working at Hoshiarpur and used to come to his house after 2/3 months. She had suspected that the accused had poisoned his son because he was unconscious at that particular point which fact of- course was not narrated to the police and recorded in Ex.PW-3/A or in the FIR. She admitted that no complaint was made to the Panchayat etc. regarding maltreatment of the deceased by the accused husband. 5. PW-6 Veena Devi, who is the aunt (chachi) of the deceased, states that not only was he responsible for causing the death/abetting suicide of Sarita by maltreating her but this attitude was also responsible for causing his mother’s death. She had been visiting Sarita off and on. She states that the main cause of maltreating the deceased was that she did not bear a male child. PW-7 Amar Singh, father of the deceased, also states on line similar to what PW-3 Rameshan Devi has stated. Adverting to the evidence on record and Chemical Examiner Report, Ex.PW-1/A, the learned trial Court holds that the statement of PW-6 Veena Devi cannot be relied upon because she has stated facts which have not even been stated by PW-3 Rameshan Devi and PW-7 Amar Singh, mother and father of the deceased. 5 PW-3 has not stated anything about beating, subjecting the deceased to physical cruelty, but all that she states is that deceased has not been provided food etc. The learned Court notices that the ingredients of Section 498-A have not been proved on record of the case. As such, no conviction could follow. 6. After giving our anxious consideration to the evidence on record, what we find from Ex.PW-3/A is that there may have been some minor differences between the deceased and her husband for the reasons that it is the case of the prosecution that at the time when he was leaving for Hoshiarpur immediately before her death he had stated that he was probably seeing her for the last time, he may probably fed up with her attitude/behaviour and for that reason he had stated to his mother-in-law that after six months her daughter would be a widow. This can hardly be treated as an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. 7. The record of the case shows that there is no specific act of cruelty which can be attributed to the respondent. Minor differences between husband and wife erupting in quarrels does not constitute cruelty in criminal law. The definition of cruelty is clear in the explanation of Section 498-A. What we find is that at one point of time he had also stated to PW-3 Rameshan Devi that his wife would be a widow in six months. 6 8. In these circumstances, we do not find that the learned trial Court has committed any error in consideration/appreciation of the evidence on record. We do not find any perversity in the conclusions arrived at by the Court below. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge. September 27, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.