IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.623 of 2002 Date of judgment: July 3, 2009 Shrestha Devi ..Appellant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Appellant Shrestha Devi, has appealed against the judgment dated 26.10.2002 of learned Sessions Court, whereby she has been convicted of offence, under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven years. Prosecution case, which has led to the conviction of appellant, may be summed up thus. Deceased Kusum Lata, was married to a son of the appellant in the year 1995. Husband of the deceased Vijay Singh was employed in the B.S.F. those days. A male child was born out of the wedlock. On 26.3.1999, around 10 pm, deceased Kusum Lata was found unconscious in her room. Before that, she had been invited for taking her meals by the appellant and her husband Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Chaman Singh, who was a co-accused with her, but she did not take the meals on the pretext that she had no appetite. She was immediately rushed to the Referral Hospital at Chuwari, where she died at 11.30 pm. Post-mortem was conducted on the next following day at 9.40 am. No injury of any type was noticed on her person. Internal organs were found normal except the two lungs in which some white frothy fluid was found. In trachea also this fluid was noticed. Viscera was preserved and sent to the Chemical Examiner but no poisonous substance was detected per report Ex.PB. On the basis of the report of Chemical Examiner, Dr. Sandeep Kumar (PW1) and Dr. G.D.Jassal (PW11), who conducted post-mortem, gave the opinion that the cause of death was cardiac arrest. Case was registered against the appellant and her husband Chaman Singh on 30.3.1999, when PW3 Shakuntla Devi, mother of the deceased accompanied by her husband Nasib Singh (PW8), went to the police. FIR is Ex.PC. As per this FIR, appellant and her husband used to ill-treat the deceased, to force her to meet their demands for different things. Once, in the year 1998, she had been admitted to Nursing Home at Jassur. She was operated upon in that clinic and remained admitted for 15 days. Appellant and her husband allegedly demanded Rs.10,000/- from the parents of the deceased to defray clinic expenses. The money was paid. - 3 - In February 1999, marriage of a brother of the deceased took place. She attended the marriage. Appellant and her husband had allegedly demanded a colour TV and a gas stove through the deceased, by way of gift, in connection with marriage of her brother. Police investigated the case and ultimately challaned the appellant and her husband Chaman Singh, in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate. Learned Magistrate after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge, charged the appellant and her husband with the offence, under Section 304-B IPC. Appellant and her husband denied the allegations of maltreatment. At the end of the trial, learned Sessions Judge, acquitted Chaman Singh, husband of the deceased but held appellant Shrestha Devi guilty of offence, under Section 304-B IPC, and convicted and sentenced her, as aforesaid. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and perused the record. There is absolutely no evidence on record indicating that this is a case of unnatural death. No poisonous substance was detected in the viscera of the deceased which was sent to the Chemical Examiner, whose report is Ex.PB. A small vial was recovered from behind the house of appellant - 4 - on 7.4.1999 by the police. It was suspected that some poisonous substance contained in that vial might have been consumed by the deceased or administered to her. The vial was also sent to the Chemical Examiner but no traces of poison were found by the Chemical Examiner, per report Ex.PB. After the receipt of Chemical Examiner’s report Ex.PB, PW1 Dr. Sandeep Kumar and PW11 Dr. G.D.Jassal, gave the opinion that the cause of death was cardiac arrest. PW1 Dr. Sandeep Kumar, while in the witness-box, very categorically stated that this could be a case of natural death. As already noticed, no injury or mark of violence was found on the person of the deceased and, therefore, it cannot be said that anything poisonous was administered to the deceased by use of force or that any criminal force was used against her to kill her. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that this was a case of death by poisoning or on account of use of criminal force, it can legitimately be presumed that this could have been a case of natural death. Trial Court has held the appellant guilty, with the finding that she had demanded Rs.10,000/-, when the deceased was admitted to a clinic and she also demanded a colour TV and a gas stove as gift, at the time of marriage of the brother of the deceased. Even if, it be assumed that such demands were made, that would not prove that the deceased - 5 - died an unnatural death. Also, I find that the evidence regarding alleged demand of money by the appellant is self contradictory. According to PW3 Shakuntala Devi, mother of the deceased, it was PW6 Rama Rani, her another daughter, in whose presence, the demand had been made by the appellant, for an amount of Rs.10,000/-. However, PW6 Rama Rani, stated that the demand was made when PW3 Shakuntala Devi was also there. Alleged demand, regarding a colour TV and a gas stove, did not constitute any harassment or any act of cruelty. The demand was only, by way of gift at the time of marriage of a brother of the deceased. It is nobody’s case that any pressure was exerted upon the deceased to bring those two items nor is there any evidence that on account of having not brought those items from her parents, she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment. In view of the above-discussed position, I do not think trial Court was justified in concluding that the appellant was guilty of offence of dowry death, under Section 304-B IPC. Consequently, appeal is allowed. Judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offence, is set aside and she is acquitted. July 3, 2009 (Surjit Singh), J. s.