1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 118 of 2002 Decided on August 25, 2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Joginder Singh & ors ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh Thakur, 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 24.9.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, HP in Sessions Trial No. 18/2001, thereby acquitting the respondents/ accused for the offence under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC, in reference to FIR No. 74/2000 dated 8.7.2000. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Kusum Lata, victim- deceased daughter of Suraksha Devi (PW-1) and Dev Raj (PW-2) of village Chalet, Tehsil Amb, District Una, HP was married to the accused Sher Singh in December, 1999. Kusum Lata, victim- Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 deceased was comfortable at initial period of one month after her marriage. Thereafter, when she came to the house of her parents, she started complaining that the accused persons call her a woman of easy virtue, given her beatings and had derived domestic and agricultural work from her. After 20 days prior to the death, Kusum Lata, victim-deceased had come to the house of her parents and again complained about the maltreatment on the part of the accused persons. On 8.7.2000, victim-deceased consumed aluminium phosphide in her matrimonial house. She was brought by the accused persons to CHC, Daulatpur Chowk, however, she was not in a position to make any statement in the hospital itself where Kusum Lata, victim-deceased died. After the post mortem and on investigation, accused persons were charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as six prosecution witnesses, whereas, through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused/ respondents denied the prosecution case. 4. The postmortem examination of victim-deceased was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Pathak (PW-3), who opined that Kusum Lata died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. However, no mark of injury or assault was noticed on her body. 5. Smt. Suraksha Devi (PW-1), the mother of the victim-deceased, in her endeavour to support the prosecution case, has stated that the accused persons were deriving entire household work from the victim-deceased. The victim was telling to PW-1 that the 3 accused persons have obliged the parents of victim by marrying her to Sher Singh otherwise there were many girls ready for marriage with accused/respondent Sher Singh and 20 days prior to her death, victim-deceased came to the parental house and complained about the torture given to her by the accused persons. PW-1, however, has stated in cross-examination that the accused persons and younger brother of Sher Singh accused were in the family of accused persons and both the families belong to Rajput community and were doing agricultural work. PW-1 has also stated that the victim was the student of +2 at the time of her marriage and she took +2 examination from her matrimonial house in the month of April, 2000. PW-1 has further stated that she was not aware if victim-deceased was provided tuition facility before examination. 6. (PW-2)/ Dev Raj, the father of the victim-deceased, has stated that he visits his house on every week end from Ludhiana, where he was deployed and victim-deceased used to tell him that the accused persons were torturing and beating her. PW-2 has also stated that he had not seen the house of the accused persons before marriage of victim-deceased and as per the testimony of PW-2, made in the cross-examination, he did not verify the antecedents of the accused persons before marriage. However, PW-2 has admitted that there were 2-3 houses adjacent to the house of the accused and police post at Daulatpur. PW-2 had never made any report to the police at any time about the alleged maltreatment. (PW-4) Vidya Devi, the sister-in-law of Dev Raj (PW-2) has stated that marriage of Kusum Lata, victim-deceased with Sher Singh, accused was arranged 4 one and victim had come to her house thrice after marriage and before death and was telling that the accused persons was calling the victim a lady of bad character and used to beat her and was deriving from her entire domestic work. PW-2, however, in cross-examination, has stated that there were about 50 houses in her Mohalla and all are from Rajput community. PW-2 has also stated that marriage of victim with the accused Sher Singh was settled through Anju Bala, daughter of Mausi of the accused Sher Singh. (PW-5), constable Gurdial Singh has prepared Daily Diary Rapat Ext PE. (PW-6) SI Onkar Singh was the Investigating Officer. 7. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that the marriage of victim-deceased was solemnized in a ritual manner with accused Sher Singh and the marriage was arranged on the mediation of Anju Bala, the daughter of Mausi of accused Sher Singh and before marriage, victim- deceased and accused were well acquainted with each other rather they were in love affairs. Even parents of victim-deceased were anxious for early marriage, as has been admitted by PW-1 in her cross-examination. We also notice that at the time of marriage, victim- deceased was the student of +2 standard and was studying in DAV School, Daulatpur and was allowed to go for examination from her matrimonial house in the month of April, 2000 and was also given tuition before examination. 8. (PW-1) & (PW-2) have, however, nowhere stated in their testimonies, regarding any complaint made by the victim-deceased about the maltreatment or beating. They have no where stated that 5 they ever made any complaint to Gram Panchayat, any police officials or to any independent person of the locality. In view of the testimony of PW-4, there were about 50 houses near the house of matrimonial house of the victim-deceased and none has come forward to indicate about the mal treatment given to the victim-deceased. Neither the villagers were informed about the maltreatment or beating nor the report was ever lodged by PWs 1 & 2 before Gram Panchayat. As per the testimony of PW-2, Dev Raj made in the cross-examination, they are respectable persons of the locality and did not contact any villager to seek any help in respect of the alleged maltreatment and beating given to the victim-deceased. So much so, PW-2 has not divulged to any member of ‘Biradari’ about the alleged maltreatment ever given to the victim-deceased. As per the testimony of PW-4, nothing unusual could be derived from the behaviour of accused persons. 9. When victim-deceased had consumed a poison, she was shifted to the hospital by the accused persons immediately and the accused persons had endeavour hard to save the victim- deceased. PW-1 had also made complaint that after the death of victim, in lieu of dowry articles given earlier, Rs. 1.50 lacs had to be given to the parents of the victim. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find that no mark of injury was neither noticed by any independent person nor by any villager or any individual person of the locality. No specific complaint of maltreatment or beating was made to the police or Gram Panchayat or any member of the ‘Biradari’. The marriage of victim-deceased was arranged with the accused Sher Singh on the 6 mediation of Anju Bala (the daughter of Mausi of accused Sher Singh). When victim had consumed poison, immediately without any delay, she was taken to the hospital by the accused persons. In these circumstances nothing is emanating from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the victim-deceased had died because of maltreatment, beating or being perturbed by the demand of dowry by the accused as provided under Section 498-A IPC 10. In our considered view, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons, We find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment of the trial court. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. Bail bonds, furnished by the accused/ respondents, are hereby discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 25th August, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), J. (sl)