IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.: 117 of 2003 Date of Decision: 9.11.2011. State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Sagar Sharma and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Appellant-State: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A.G. For the Respondents: Mr. Himat Negi, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 1.1.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions trial No. 30 of 2001 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. 2. The deceased Reena Devi was married to respondent No.1 Sagar Sharma. Respondents No. 2 and 3, Sat Prakash and Kamla Devi, are the parents of Sagar Sharma. Respondent No.4 Desh Raj was a tenant in the house of Sat Prakash and Kamla Devi. 2 3. The prosecution case is that these four accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty and maltreated her and they were demanding dowry and as such they also abetted in the suicide of Reena Devi. There is no dispute that deceased Reena Devi committed suicide. The only issues are whether she was treated with cruelty by the respondents and whether the cruelty was of such an extent that it amounted to abetment within the meaning of Section 306 IPC. 4. PW-6 Kumhir Chand Katoch is a neighbour of respondents. On 23.9.1999 when he was sitting in his house in the afternoon he heard the cries of deceased Reena Devi and her child. He went to the house of the accused and found that Reena Devi was lying near the door. She was vomiting. The child was sitting on the bed and was crying. He picked up the child and took him to his house. He then telephoned Sagar Sharma accused No.1 and informed him about the incident. He then again went to the house of the accused and he could smell phosphide. None of the accused were present at home and therefore, PW-6 Shri Katoch asked his wife to call the villagers. In the meantime, the villagers and husband of deceased (Sagar Sharma) reached home. Reena Devi told the witness that she 3 had taken four tablets of poison but did not give any reason for taking this drastic step. In the meantime, accused Kamla Devi also reached and Reena Devi died before she could be taken to the hospital. The witness clearly states that he had not heard any quarrel between the deceased and the accused on that day but on the previous night he had heard noise of quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons. According to him, Reena Devi had earlier twice come to his house crying and wanted to telephone her parents but it would be pertinent to mention that in his statement recorded by the police there is no mention of this fact. 5. PW-1 Bishan Dass is the father of the deceased. According to him, after the marriage, for three months his daughter was kept nicely but thereafter the accused started quarreling and threatening her. After complaints were made, for some time ill-treatment was stopped but again the accused started beating Reena for bringing less dowry. He also claims that in 1998 Reena came to his house and stated that Sagar Sharma had demanded Rs.4,000/- which he had took on loan from Shri Brij Lal. According to this witness Reena had told him that her mother-in-law had illicit relations with accused Des Raj and it was Des Raj who used to 4 instigate the other accused. This story is unbelievable. Why would the husband and son of Kamla Devi act at the instance of a person with whom she allegedly had illicit relations? It would be pertinent to mention that these allegations about demand of dowry, demand of Rs.4,000/- and illicit relations between Kamla Devi and Des Raj did not find mention in the first information given to the police (Ext.PA) but were only stated for the first time in Court. 6. This witness has admitted that at the time of marriage of Reena, the accused person had put a condition that they would not accept any dowry. He admits that articles of dowry were arranged and he wanted to give the same to his daughter but the accused persons had refused to accept any dowry. This witness further stated that on 8.11.1998 his daughter had given birth to a son at Kapila Nursing Home and the entire expenses for the delivery was borne by the accused. He later stated that he paid Rs.5000/- to the doctor but had not taken any receipt. The fact about payment of Rs.5000/- was also not mentioned in the statement recorded by the police. 7. PW-3 Subhi Devi is the mother of the deceased. Her version is totally different to that of her husband. She not only states that the husband given Rs.4000/- after 5 borrowing the same from Brij Lal but according to her she also gave Rs.15,000/- to her daughter in three instalments. This fact was not stated by her when her statement was got recorded by the police. The mother could not give any details of the amount allegedly given by her. She also states that the accused took away all the dowry articles in the presence of her husband. This is totally contrary to the statement of the husband referred to earlier. According to her the entire expenses of the delivery of the child were borne by her and that she gave Rs.3000/- in all. She also states that the husband did not give any money and she paid Rs.3,000/-. This is totally contrary to the statement of the husband who first stated that the entire expenses were borne by the accused but later stated that he had also given Rs.5,000/-. Brij Lal was not examined in Court. 8. From the material on record, it stands proved that the accused had never asked for any dowry at the time of marriage. In fact they had refused to accept the dowry articles. There are major contradictions in the statements of the parents with regard to the payment of money and there is no other proof that the deceased was being treated with cruelty. The evidence is highly contradictory and conflicting. When the statements 6 were initially recorded by the police no such allegations were made by the parents in their statements. It is thus apparent that the evidence qua demand of dowry is totally false. In fact what stands proved is that at the time of marriage the accused refused to take any dowry. The evidence qua ill-treatment, harassment or maltreatment is extremely vague and based on hearsay and none of the neighbours have supported the same. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in acquitting the accused and we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 9th November, 2011 ( V.K.Ahuja ) ™ Judge.