IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 734 of 1996 Decided on: 3.11.2009 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Desh Raj ..…Respondent 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, Assistant A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Virender Rathore, Advocate. Surjit Singh,J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 18th April, 1996 of the learned Sessions Court, whereby respondent Desh Raj, who was charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, as per evidence is like this. Deceased Chanchla Devi was married to the respondent about 15 years, prior to her committing suicide. She committed 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 suicide on 28th November, 1994. Respondent Desh Raj, her husband, was away to his office when Chanchla Devi hanged herself, by means of her Dupatta from the ceiling of the kitchen. When the respondent returned in the evening, he found her hanging. He immediately cut the Dupatta by which she was hanging. He then informed the Pradhan of the Panchayat, namely, PW8 Joginder Singh. Police was telephonically informed by Joginder Singh Pradhan. Police reached the spot at 3.00 a.m. on 29th November, 1994 and conducted inquest. Forms Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C were filled in. Dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. PW1 Dr. D.R. Reyal conducted the post mortem examination and issued report Ext.PW1/A. As per this report the cause of death was shock due to cardio respiratory failure resulting from asphyxia, caused by hanging. The brothers of the deceased were informed by the Pradhan of the panchayat through one Rakesh. Thereafter, dead body was cremated. On 2nd December 1994, one of the brothers of the deceased, namely, PW2 Parkash Chand lodged FIR that the deceased used to be harassed and subjected to physical torture by the respondent and his mother and fed up with harassment and torture, she had taken the extreme step. Police conducted investigation and challaned the respondent. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate, in whose Court the challan was filed, committed the case to the Sessions Court after complying with the requirements of Sections 207 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge assigned the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, who charged the respondent with offences, 3 under Section 498-A and 306 IPC. On respondent’s not pleading guilty, he was put on trial. Prosecution examined two brothers of the deceased, namely, PW2 Parkash Chand and PW3 Piaru, sister-in-law of the deceased PW4 Kamla Devi, landlord of the respondent and his two co-tenants to prove the allegations that the deceased used to be subjected to beatings by the respondent. 4. Respondent took the plea that he had been maintaining the deceased properly but she was a short tempered woman and in a fit of rage she committed suicide. Trial Court did not believe the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondent. 5. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. The two brothers of the deceased and her sister-in-law have not given any specific instance of the alleged beating nor have they given the dates or places of such beatings. In the earliest version which was given to the police by PW2 Parkash Chand, vide FIR Ext.PW2/A, it was alleged that the deceased used to be harassed both by her mother-in-law, whenever she lived with her in the village as also by the respondent when she lived with him at his place of posting. However, during the course of trial, both the brothers of the deceased, as also her sister-in-law very categorically stated that the deceased always lived with the respondent at his place of posting. Parkash Chand PW2 did not deny the suggestion put to him in the cross-examination that the deceased used to live happily with the respondent; rather he admitted the same to be 4 correct. He also admitted that whenever the deceased visited her parental place, the respondent accompanied her. He also admitted that the two used to come together and go back together, after staying with them. Now, if the respondent and the deceased had been visiting the parents of the deceased together, it was quite unlikely that the deceased would complain to her brothers or sister-in-law that the respondent used to beat her up after consuming liquor. Sister-in-law of the deceased, namely, Kamla Devi, who appeared as PW4 admitted that the respondent never consumed liquor, when on visit to her house. 5. Prosecution also examined Rai Singh PW5 in whose building the respondent and the deceased along with their children used to reside, as tenant. The witness stated that the deceased used to live happily and that he never saw the respondent giving beating to her. PW6 Onkar Singh and PW7 Jagdish Raj, who also lived in the same building of PW5 Rai Singh in the capacity of tenants, as the respondent, also stated that the couple used to live happily and they never saw the respondent ill-treating, harassing or beating the deceased. 6. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore dismissed. (Surjit Singh),Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. November 3, 2009 (vs)