IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 372 of 1995. Date of decision: September 17, 2009. State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Hirdepaul Singh and another. ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. M.S. Chandel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents, for the offences punishable under Sections 304- B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. Palwinder Kaur (deceased) daughter of Ranbir Singh, resident of Ludhiana (Punjab) was married to respondent Hirdepaul Singh on 28.2.1993, in village Andreta, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Respondent Gurcharan 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? - 2 - Kaur is the mother of respondent Hirdepaul Singh. She was also residing with her son (respondent) in the village. 3. On 13th May, 1993, Palwinder Kaur was found lying dead in her bed in the room. The police was informed. PW20 ASI Bidhi Chand, Incharge of Police Post Panchrukhi, upon receiving the information visited the spot along with Pradhan Baldev Singh, Wazir Chand and other respectable persons. He noticed some white froth, coming from the mouth of the dead body. Thus he carried out the search of the rooms. He found one small tin of ‘Begon spray’, an insecticide in the bath-room and also a tumbler nearby, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PM. He took the photographs Ex.PO/1 to 8. A diary and Pen, lying in the room were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PL. The dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by PW1 Dr. Baldev Kumar and PW2 Dr. Vinay Mahajan on 14th May, 1993. 4. On examination of the dead body by the doctors, they noticed the presence of rigor mortis on the dead body. Pleurae was found pale but normal. Larynx and trachea were having frothy secretions with normal mucosa. Right & left lungs were congested and on cutting, dark fluid had come out. Pericardium was normal. Both the chambers of heart were full of blood and large vessels contained blood. Mouth, pharynx and esophagus had secretions with congested mucosa. - 3 - Stomach was full of liquid smelling like kerosene. Intestines, Liver, Spleen, Kidneys were also found congested. 5. The viscera was sent for forensic examination. Based upon the reports of the laboratory, in the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was ‘Asphyxia due to poison- Isoproxy Phenyl-Methyl Carbonate’. The probable time, which elapsed between the injury and death could not be ascertained, but between the death and postmortem was opined to be 12 to 36 hours. The postmortem report is Ex.PA. 6. PW18 R.N. Sharma, Additional Superintendent of Police, who was posted as S.D.O.(P) Palampur had also visited the spot and recorded the statement of mother PW3 Surinder Kaur and father of the deceased, Ranbir Singh, during the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. but at that time they did not suspect any foul play. The dead body was handed over to them. They took it to Ludhiana and performed her last rites. 7. On 21st May, 1993, Smt. Surinder Kaur aforesaid accompanied by her brother came to Police Station, Palampur and produced a photocopy of the letter purported to have been written by one PW19 C.Madhu resident of Kerala to her son PW4 Amrit Singh when he was at Andreta wherein he alleged that the deceased was not happy at her matrimonial home and lodged the FIR Ex.PE against the respondents. The copy of letter aforesaid was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH. - 4 - 8. It is pertinent to note that at the time of lodging the FIR there was no allegation with respect to the demand of dowry and maltreatment for not providing the same; but during the investigation on 29th July, 1993 in her supplementary statement, improved her version and made the above allegations and thereafter produced other witnesses to that effect. The police came to the conclusion that the deceased had died of an unnatural death and found the involvement of the respondents for the above offences. The respondents were arrested. On completing the investigation, the challan against them was presented in the court for their trial. 9. The respondents were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting the deceased Palwinder Kaur with cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry, in furtherance of their common intention. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 10. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the circumstances put to them and maintained their innocence. They took up the stand that the deceased had received a telephone call from outside, thereafter she retired to her sleeping room. Next morning, she was found dead. They alleged their false implication in the case. - 5 - 11. The learned trial court called upon the respondents to enter into their defence, but they did not lead any evidence in defence. At the end of trial, they were acquitted by the learned trial court, precisely on the ground of omissions, material contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record. 13. Admittedly, the deceased committed suicide and died due to Asphyxia as a result of consumption of Poison, an oregano-chloride. 14. Ranbir Singh, father of the deceased died at the time when the matter was under investigation. PW3 Surinder Kaur, the mother of deceased stated before the court that the deceased was married to respondent No.1 on 28th February, 1993. She stated that she alongwith her husband attended ‘Brahm Bhoj’ in the house of respondents in village Andreta, but they were not treated well by the respondents and at that time the deceased also complained to them that she was also not being treated properly by the respondents. Next morning, they returned to Ludhiana. On 17th March, 1993, the deceased alongwith her husband visited the uncle of respondent Hirdepaul Singh in Ludhiana from there the deceased contacted her on telephone to take her to the parental-house. Then on the same day PW3 brought her to her house, whereas respondent Hirdepaul Singh visited her - 6 - on the next day, i.e. on 18th March, 1993 and raised the demand of VCR, Godrej Almirah, Double Bed Box and a Sofa-set as dowry items. She promised to provide all these articles to him, thereafter respondent Hirdepaul Singh returned to his village alongwith the deceased. She further stated that during this period, the deceased was harassed by the respondents on account of the demand of dowry. She further stated that on 11th April, 1993, Gurcharan Kaur respondent visited Ludhiana and stayed in the house of the brother of her husband, but did not visit her. Gurcharan Kaur informed her that she would be returning village Andreta on 13th April, 1993 and the deceased would be left at the house of her brother-in-law, but the respondent Gurcharan Kaur returned to her house on 13th April, 1993 alongwith the deceased to Andreta. She further stated that she sent PW4 Amrit Singh, her son alongwith his friend PW5 Kulwant Singh to village Andreta to find out the welfare of the deceased. The deceased also complained to him about the harassment by the respondents on account of the dowry demand and she made the request to send dowry articles at the earliest as she was being harassed by the respondents. She also deposed that she received a letter from the deceased about her harassment, but that letter was not produced by her either to the police or before the trial Court, however, stated that on 13th May, 1992, she received a message regarding illness of her daughter, therefore, she along with her husband visited - 7 - village Andreta and came to know that she was dead and her dead body was sent for the postmortem. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them for cremation. They carried it to Ludhiana to perform the last rites and it was thereafter she visited Palampur on 21st May, 1993 and lodged the FIR against the respondents. 15. In her cross-examination, she stated that she informed the police on 14th itself that her daughter was killed by the respondents on account of demand of dowry but the police insisted upon them to sign some papers to which they refused. However, she admitted her signatures on Ex.DB. Her statement recorded on 14th May, 1993 by the then Dy.S.P. (PW18) whereby she did not raise any suspicion even remotely on the respondents with respect to her death nor she made any allegations that there was harassment and torture by the respondents on the demand of dowry. However, she denied the signatures of her husband on his similar statement Ex.DC. She stated that after lodging of the FIR on 21st May, 1993, she had visited Shimla alongwith her Advocate for opposing the bail application moved by the respondents in the High Court. 16. On critical examination of her statement, significantly we find that PW3 did not make any allegation with respect to demand of dowry articles by the respondents in FIR (Ex.PE), but she made a futile attempt to show that the police did not record this fact in the FIR. She alleged that the police - 8 - also did not record her version that her daughter had informed her about the ill-treatment on the day of ‘Brahm Bhoj’, however, she admitted that as per custom, respondent Hirdepaul Singh accompanied the deceased to leave her at her matrimonial place on 17th March, 1993, and the deceased remained in her house till 13th April, 1993 with the consent of the respondents. The so called letter of the deceased received by her was also not produced which would have thrown some light on the truthfulness of the allegations. The allegations of demand of dowry are after thought. She had visited Shimla alongwith her Advocate and opposed the bail application moved by the respondents in the High Court. Thus she made her supplementary statement after seven days of FIR and also on 19th July, 1993 Ex.DA, as also admitted by the Investigating Officer wherein she imputed the allegations of demand of dowry and maltreatment etc. 17. In Ex.DB PW3 Surinder Kaur and her husband Ranbir Singh in his statement Ex.DC, recorded by PW18 Dy.S.P. no suspicion was expressed by either of them against the respondents. According to the said Officer, these statements were made voluntarily by them. It is also pertinent to note that there is no allegation of any force or coercive method used by the police against the complainant party to protect the respondents and to fabricate a false record. Rather the police lodged the FIR on 21st May, 1993 at the instance of PW3 aforesaid when she was accompanied by her brother - 9 - Baldev Singh (PW6). At that time the police took no time to register their case as per their version. Even in that statement there was no allegation of demand of dowry by the respondents or for that matter, there is also no allegation of harassment on that account. Thus omission of these important facts as alleged by the mother of the deceased subsequently without any cogent explanation, affects the probabilities of the case which are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act to judge the veracity of the prosecution case to come to a right conclusion. Thus the version given by the mother of the deceased PW3 Surinder Kaur that the police did not record the FIR when the allegations were made earlier against the respondents also stands falsified, rather their statements before the SDO (P) Exts.DB and DC were proved to be correct as stated by the said police officer, against whom there is no allegation made by PW3. 18. The above position apart, the prosecution also sought to prove the charge against the respondents by examining PW19 C. Madhu, a resident of Cochin, who had visited the house of respondent Hirdepaul Singh in the year 1993. He claimed to have stayed in his house for 3-4 days. According to him, he did not know whether the wife of the accused Hirdepaul Singh was living happily or she was having some differences with her husband or mother-in-law. However, the prosecution has put reliance upon his letter Ex.PQ allegedly sent by him to Amrit Singh (PW4), the brother - 10 - of the deceased, but that letter did not make any mention therein that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. Although, he stated that a settlement was arrived at inter se the deceased and respondent Hirdepaul Singh, which was reduced into writing by him, but its original was not produced to substantiate his version. Its photocopy mark-A does not make any head and tail about the nature of dispute and terms of settlement, therefore, it can also not be looked into for any purpose. He further stated that during the period of his stay at Andreta village, PW4 Amrit Singh had come to see the deceased. He had a conversation with him in English, whereas; Amrit Singh stated that he did not know English at all. If that being so, the above story introduced by C. Madhu that he and Amrit Singh had discussed about the maltreatment to the deceased, stands falsified. 19. We also find from the statement of PW19 C. Madhu that he himself had been suffering from a mental ailment since 1990. He admitted that he was getting treatment from Dr. Philip John of Ernakulam in Kochi and his mental agility can be assessed from what he has stated during his examination that his mental power is so strong as he could guess as to what is in the mind of other person(s) and he could even read the mind of all those persons, who visited him at Andreta, but further stated that he could not read the minds of all such persons. He stated that the letter was written by him to PW4 Amrit Singh, on the basis of the strength of mind- - 11 - reading by him and he derived such a power by meditation by which he inculcated lot of strength to read the minds of people. On the scrutiny of his testimony and the nature of his deposition, we are unable to put any reliance on his statement even for corroboration. 20. Thus on scanning the statements of the prosecution witnesses very carefully, vis-à-vis the conduct of the respondents we do not find that a case worth the name, as set out by the prosecution even prima-facie exists against the respondents. It is also worth noting that respondent Hirdepaul Singh after discovering the dead body of his wife immediately reported the matter to the police and informed her parents. He did not object for autopsy and no hurry was shown by him to cremate the dead body, rather he informed Pradhan Baldev Singh and other respectable persons including PW7 Wazir Chand. The parents of the deceased were present at the time of post-mortem, but none of them expressed any suspicion against the respondents as stated above. All these circumstances are consistent with the innocence of the respondents. 21. After looking in to the facts and circumstances of the case carefully, we find that there exists no proximity and live-link between the alleged cruelty based on the dowry demand and the death of Palwinder Kaur. Even the allegations with respect to the alleged allegations are inconsistent, made after due deliberations and are full of - 12 - contradictions thus not worth inspiring confidence. The deceased was not proved to be subjected to any cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the respondents continuously or persistently or at least close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. The complaint/FIR was also an afterthought. Even in that, we do not find any allegation of the nature for which the respondents were charge-sheeted. The embellishment, improvements and inconsistencies as discussed above make the prosecution case highly doubtful, therefore, in our considered opinion, the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial court cannot be, in any way, faulted with. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 22. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them during the proceedings of this case. (Surjit Singh), Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge September 17th, 2009. (Pds)