IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.306 of 1997. Decided on: July 22, 2010. State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Jaswanti Devi & Ors. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr.Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. For respondents 2 to 4: Mr.Amar Deep, vice Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. R.B.Misra, Judge(Oral) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 20th February, 1997, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No.68-N/7 of 1995, thereby acquitting the respondents / accused persons for offence under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. In order to adjudicate the present appeal, it is necessary to give the brief facts of the prosecution case. It appears that Sandip Rani, daughter of Ram Chander of village Sundagaran (Kurukshetra), was married with Prithi Singh, son of Kundan Singh, of village Paliyon, in March 1992. Sandip Rani allegedly committed suicide by consuming the tablets of aluminium phosphide on 20.10.1994 in the house of her husband Prithi Singh, as such, a case for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC was registered at Police Station, Nahan on 28.10.1994, alleging that the mother, sisters and brother of Prithi Singh and the husband of Sandip Rani (deceased) treated Sandip Rani with cruelty and consequently she committed suicide. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses, whereas, the respondents / accused, to their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have denied the charges and prosecution case. 4. PW-2, Dr.Sanjay Singla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Chandigarh, had conducted post- mortem on the dead body of Sandip Rani on 24.10.1994, (who died on 22.10.1994), has opined that Sandip Rani had died of poisoning due to consuming of aluminum phosphide. PW-3, Barjinder …3… Singh is the brother of Sandip Rani deceased. PW-1, Dr.A.K.Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Naraingarh, who initially examined the deceased on 22.10.1994, suspected that the victim had consumed poison. PW-4, Shanti Devi is the mother of the deceased. PW-5, Ramesh Chand, investigated the case. PW-6, Constable Dhanvir Singh No.138, Police Station, Nahan, recorded Rapat and PW-7, ASI Parkash Chand, also investigated the case. However, by going through the testimony of PW-3, Barjinder Singh, it appears that for initial period of six months the victim was comfortable in her marital life. Thereafter, all the four accused persons i.e. Smt.Jaswanti Devi, mother, Salochna and Sita Devi, sisters and Ram Karan, real brother of the husband of the deceased, started ill- treating the deceased. As per the testimony of PW-3, the deceased used to visit her parental house once or twice in a month and at the time of her marriage, they had given the clothes and ornaments only to Sandip Rani. However, on subjecting her cruel treatment by the accused, the other dowry articles were given to her six months to one year after her marriage. The articles included fridge, table fan, ceiling fan, furniture and kitchen wares worth Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000. Jaswanti Devi (accused) wanted to give those articles of dowry of …4… the victim to her daughters Salochna Devi and Sita Devi in their marriage which was opposed by the victim, therefore, the relations of the accused with the victim were strained. When Sandip Rani visited her parental house, she told that her mother-in-law Jaswanti Devi had fixed the marriage of her daughters Salochna Devi and Sita Devi and she was insisting for giving the dowry articles of Sandip Rani to her daughters. 5. On 23.10.1994, Rajesh Kumar, the younger brother of Prithi Singh, came to the house of victim at Kurukshetra and told PW-3 that Sandip Rani was admitted in PGI Chandigarh for stomach pain, then PW-3, along with his maternal uncle Mange Ram and paternal uncle Gian Chand firstly came to Naraingarh and then to village Palliyon along with Rajesh Kumar as Rajesh Kumar had told PW-3 that Sandip Rani had been brought back from PGI Chandigarh, however, on reaching the house of the accused, Ram Karan was present in the house and on enquiry, Ram Karan told that Sandip Rani was quite O.K. and she was being brought back from PGI Chandigarh. PW-3 was waiting for Sandip Rani and after some time accused Jaswanti Devi, along with 7 – 8 relations, came there and stayed there up to 2 or 2.30 PM when the dead body of Sandip Rani was brought by Prithi Singh. On enquiry, the cause of …5… death was not divulged to PW-3 and it was told that Sandip Rani had died between 22nd and 23rd October, 1994 and on demand for dead body of Sandip Rani, the accused persons did not want to hand over the same but on the intervention of Prithi Singh, her dead body was handed over to them. Therefore, it was suspected that the victim died due to cruelty meted out by the accused to her, accordingly, report Ext.PC was made. The letters written by the deceased Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-5 were also presented by PW-3 to the police and the hand-writing of victim was acknowledged by PW-3 from the letters as the victim had studied up to 3rd standard. 6. In cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that Prithi Singh was the labourer, Jaswanti Devi was house wife and at the time of marriage of Sandip Rani, no demand of dowry was made. However, PW-3 has further stated that the sister and Rangi Ram, brother-in-law of Prithi Singh, were also with PW-3 when the dowry articles were handed over to the accused at their house. PW-3 has also stated in his cross examination that Prithi Singh and Sandip Rani were residing in separate room in the same house and they were separated after receiving the dowry articles by the accused persons. PW-3 has very categorically stated in his cross examination that dowry articles were given on demand from the …6… accused. It has also been admitted by PW-3 in his cross examination that Sandip Rani wanted to join service and for that she had written in a letter to PW-3 that a false certificate may be procured. 7. PW-4, Smt.Shanti Devi, the mother of the victim, in support of the prosecution case, has stated that in her presence when accused taunted Sandip Rani, they entered into hot words, therefore, Sita Devi accused slapped on the face of Sandip Rani in her presence. PW-4 has also stated in her cross examination, that the victim was residing in separate room in the same house of her husband. 8. On examination of testimonies of DW-2, Satya Devi, DW-3 Karam Chand and specifically the statement of DW-4, ASI, Harbhajan Singh, Police Post, PGI Chandigarh, who recorded the dying declaration of Sandip Rani on 22.10.1994, it is not proved that Sandip Rani was subjected to cruelty much less for the demand of dowry. Perusal of letters Ext.P-1 to Ext.P-5 shows that Sandip Rani was feeling uncomfortable in the house of the accused but there is no fact brought in those letters as to the cause of strained relations between the parties. In the letter dated 10.4.1993, Ext.P-2, it is mentioned that Jaswanti Devi had been asking her for separation, therefore, …7… she had separated herself from the accused. It has also been mentioned therein that Jaswanti Devi had refused to part with the household articles. Therefore, Sandip Rani had asked her brother Barjinder Singh to send her household articles from his house. It shows that she had not received any household articles much-less the dowry articles from her brother even up to 10.4.1993. Therefore, the allegations of the prosecution that the dowry articles worth Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000 were given to Sandip Rani six months after her marriage in March, 1992, stand falsified. From the perusal of said letters, nothing is emanating that the accused persons had demanded the house-hold articles from the victim much-less to give them to Salochna Devi and Sita Devi (accused) in their marriage. Even in the letters, it is not mentioned that Sita Devi slapped Sandip Rani (deceased) rather it was Rajesh Kumar who had slapped her. However, said Rajesh Kumar had not been arrayed as an accused in this case. In letter dated 15.6.1994 Ext.P-5, it is mentioned that for the strained relations even Barjinder Singh (PW-3) has been blaming Sandip Rani deceased. 9. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and the above-referred letters, it is not proved that the victim was subjected to cruelty and …8… nothing is emanating that the cruelty or harassment was to such an extent that would force the deceased to commit suicide. DW-2, Satya Devi, on the other hand, has stated that on 20.10.1994, she had found Sandip Rani vomiting outside the Chakki of her husband Karam Chand and that on enquiry Sandip Rani had told her that she had taken the medicines for stomach ache. DW-1, Prithi Singh, who brought the dead body of the victim, has stated that on coming to know about the vomiting of Sandip Rani (victim), he immediately came there and took her to the hospital at Naraingarh and thereafter to PGI but she died at PGI on 22.10.1994. Prithi Singh, husband of the victim, has stated that immediately thereafter the information was sent to the complainant party through his younger brother Rajesh Kumar. This fact has also been admitted by Barjinder Singh and Shanti Devi. DW-3, Karam Chand, has stated that the accused had never demanded any dowry articles nor they treated Sandip Rani with cruelty. Even statement of DW-4, ASI Harbhajan Singh, who recorded the statement of Sandip Rani on 22.10.1994, Ext.DW-4/A, at PGI, nothing is emanating from such statement that she took the tablet of aluminium phosphide by mistake as she had stomach ache. Since such tablets of aluminium phosphide are found in the houses of the …9… farmers as pesticides. Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out if Sandip Rani had taken those tablets by mistake as she had stomach ache for redressal of her abdominal pain. 10. From the scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses, nothing is emanating that the cruelty was meted out by the accused persons and there was specific demand of dowry and the articles said to have been indicated in the statement of PW-3 mainly fridge, table fan, ceiling fan, furniture and kitchen-ware worth Rs.20,000 to Rs.25,000 in the demand of dowry was ever passed on to or transferred to the house of accused in reference to the demand of dowry. The relation of Prithi Singh, husband of victim and the deceased was not strained. No doubt, the victim / deceased had died by consuming aluminium phosphide but that could not be said at the instance of cruelty or any assault made by the accused persons in respect of the dowry. 11. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment and the appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. …10… 12. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondents, are hereby discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. July 22, 2010. ( V.K.Sharma ), J. (soni) …11…