IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 319 of 1999 Judgment reserved on : 16.6.2010 Date of Decision : July 16 , 2010 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Mastan Singh and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. A. G. for the appellant-State. For the respondent : Mr. C. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 29.6.1997 the accused persons were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 18.6.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 20-G/VII/1998, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Shri Mastan Singh and others the accused stands acquitted of the charged offence. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Sneh Lata was married to accused No. 2 Kuljit Singh on 23.2.1991. From the wed lock two children were born. Till the year 1995 the deceased was being properly looked after by her husband and the other members of the family. Thereafter the accused persons namely Mastan Singh (accused No. 1) brother of Kuljit Singh (accused No. 2), Kiran Bala (accused No. 3) wife of accused No. 1 and Geeta Devi (accused No. 4) mother of accused No. 1 and 2 started maltreating the deceased on the ground that she had brought insufficient dowry. All the accused persons abetted the deceased to commit suicide by burning herself after pouring kerosene oil on her body. 3. On 29.6.1997 a wireless message was received at Police Station Haripur, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. that a lady from village Ghar-Jalot, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra who had been admitted in the Civil Hospital, Pathankot (Punjab) due to burn injuries had expired in the hospital. On the basis of this information HC-Shyam Parshad (PW-13) of Police Station, Haripur visited the Hospital on 30.6.1997. There he recorded the statement of Sh. Sudarshan Singh (PW-3) brother of deceased Sneh Lata. On the basis of this statement recorded under Section 154 Cr. P.C., F.I.R. No. 53/1997 dated 30.6.1997 (Ext. PW 9/A) was registered at Police Station, Haripur, District Kangra, H.P. PW-13 continued with the investigation. He prepared the inquest report and got the post mortem conducted at Pathankot itself. Post mortem report (Ext. PW 14/A) was taken by him. He also got the statements of Sh. 3 Sudarshan Singh (PW-3) and Sh. Bikram Singh (PW-4) recorded. During investigation he visited the house of accused Kuljit Singh in village Ghar-Jalot and vide memo Ext. PW 7/A took into possession a plastic can (Ext. P-5) which allegedly contained kerosene oil. He also took into possession the clothes belonging to the deceased (shirt Ext. P-6 and salwar Ext.P-7) vide memo Ext. PW 7/B. The articles were sent to F.S.L. Junga for examination and report Ext. PW 13/D was obtained. Statements of other witnesses were also recorded. Investigation revealed that on 28.6.1997 deceased Sneh Lata was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Pathankot due to burn injuries suffered by her. There she breathed her last on 29.6.1997. Accused No. 2 had also suffered burn injuries on his body. The accused persons used to demand dowry, maltreat and beat deceased Sneh Lata. In fact, dowry demand of Rs. 10,000/- was met by the relations of the deceased some time in March, 1997. Accused No. 2 used to beat the deceased in a drunken state. He had poured kerosene oil on the deceased. 4. With the completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court for trial. All the accused persons were charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case prosecution examined fifteen witnesses and statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded. The accused persons took a common defence which reads as under:- 4 “We are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the mother, brothers and sister of deceased Sneh Lata. In fact, accused Mastan Singh, is serving in the Army, and living separate from his brother Kuljit Singh for the last 8/9 years, and had come on one day casual leave from Udhampur and reached home at 9.30 P.M. and found that the deceased Sheh Lata had set herself on fire and co- accused Kuljit had tried to rescue her and the accused Mastan Singh alongwith the mother , wife hired a taxi and took the injured Sneh Lata and got her admitted at C.H. Pathankot and remained there till the removal of her dead body for funeral. The funeral was conducted at the house of the accused which was joined by the family members of the deceased and other relative. Kuljit Singh was in his room and the deceased Sneh Lata was alone in the kitchen and his both sons were taking meal alongwith other children in the kitchen of Mastan Singh at the time when the deceased Sneh Lata set fire to herself. Accused Geeta Devi was in the cattle shed and accused Kiran Bala was serving food to the children in her kitchen when the said occurrence took place.” 5 The Court below acquitted the accused persons of the charged offence. The defence taken was found to be probable. Hence the present appeal. 6. From the statement of Sh. Baishnoo Dass (PW-15), record keeper, Civil Hospital, Pathankot (Punjab) who proved the prescription slip (Ext. PW 15/A) it is evident that Smt. Sneh Lata was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Pathankot (Punjab) in the night 5 intervening 28th June/ 29th June, 1997 at 00:40 a.m. (recorded as 12.40 a.m.). She had 70% burn injuries on her body. 7. From the statement of Dr. Avnish Kumar (PW-14) who carried out the post mortem and proved his report (Ext. PW 14/A) it is evident that Smt. Sneh Lata died on 29.6.1997 due to major burn injuries leading to shock and death. 8. From the certificate (Ext. PW12/A) issued by Gram Panchayat, Ghar-Jalot which is duly proved by Sh. Suresh Kumar, Secretary (PW-12) it is evident that Smt. Sneh Lata was married to accused No. 2 on 23.2.1991. It is not in dispute that two children were also born out of the wed lock. 9. Sh. Surinder Kumar (PW-2) has proved the photographs. However he does not state that he took the photographs in the kitchen belonging to accused Kuljit Singh. Even PW-13 does not state so. Sh. Pritam Singh (PW-7) is a witness to the recovery of the can (Ext. P5) and the clothes of the deceased (Ext.P6 and Ext. P7). It is not disputed that the recovery took place on 1.7.1997. The witness could not state whether the kitchen was locked or open at the time when the recovery took place. That between 28.6.1997 and 1.7.1997 none had access to the kitchen has not been proved. 10. Sh. Varinder Singh (PW-8), driver of the vehicle has proved the fact that he had taken a lady having burn injuries accompanied by a man and two other ladies to the hospital at Pathankot. His version in fact supports the defence version inasmuch as he states 6 that the injured lady had stated that she had committed a mistake and that she be saved. 11. Sh. Desh Raj (PW-9) testifies that he recorded F.I.R. (Ext. PW9/A). Sh. Sardul Singh (PW-10) has testified that the sealed parcel containing the clothes was deposited by him at F.S.L. Junga. Sh. Kushal Kumar (PW-11) prepared the challan. 12. The statement of all the aforesaid witnesses do not in any manner conclusively connect the accused to the charged offence. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the accused persons had abetted Smt. Sneh Lata in committing suicide. For this purpose the statements of the remaining witnesses namely Sh. Surdarshan Singh (PW-3), Sh. Bikram Singh (PW-4), Kumari Mukesh (PW-5), Smt. Chanchala Devi (PW-6), Sh. Shiam Parshad (PW-13) need to be examined. Perusal of the statements of these witnesses reveals that the police has carried out the investigation in an extremely casual and callous manner. The complainant party has also not come out with complete truth. 13. In our view, either there has been delay or due deliberation before matter could be reported to the police or F.I.R. registered. According to PW-13 at about 4/5 p.m. on 29.6.1997 a wireless message was received at the Police Station, Haripur that a lady belonging to village Gharjalot had expired in Civil Hospital, Pathankot. Now this wireless message has not been placed on record. Who sent this message and who received it in the police 7 station has not been disclosed. Now if an information pertaining to the death of a young lady due to burn injuries had been received on 29.6.1997 itself then why did the police wait till the next day to proceed to Pathankot for carrying out the investigation has not been explained by PW-13. We are of the firm view that, on oath, he has made a false statement to the effect that statement (Ext. PW 3/A) of PW-3 was recorded at Civil Hospital, Pathankot on 30.6.1997 at 12.10 p.m. He has also suppressed relevant material from the Court. PW-3 has categorically deposed that on 29.6.1997 he was in the house of his in-laws in village Shamkhera where at about 11.30 p.m. he was told that his sister had expired. He immediately rushed to his house in village Aghaar where he found his family members weeping. Thereafter he proceeded to the house of the accused persons at village Gharjalot and reached there at 4.00 a.m. There he had a talk with accused No. 4. What transpired between them we shall discuss later. From the house of the accused he went to the Police Post, Nagrota Surian where he lodged a report, copy of which is Ext. PW 3/A. Then the police accompanied him to the house of the accused and conducted investigation. He proceeded to Pathankot and reached Civil Hospital, Pathankot on 30.6.1997 at 1.00 p.m. 14. Now perusal of Ext. PW 3/A as also F.I.R. (Ext. PW 9/A) reveals that statement Ext. PW 3/A was recorded at Civil Hospital, Pathankot on 30.6.1997 at 12.10 p.m. Further PW-4 has revealed a different version. According to him at about 3.00 p.m. on 29.6.1997 8 he was told by “someone” at bus stand village Aghaar that his sister Sneh Lata was in a serious condition. He went to his house and informed his mother. He alongwith with his other sister Bandana proceeded to the house of his sister Sneh Lata at village Gharjalot. On the way “one shop-keeper” informed him that during the night Sneh Lata had already been shifted to Civil Hospital, Pathankot and therefore he dropped Bandana near the shop so that she could go the house of Sneh Lata and take care of her minor children. The distance to the house of the deceased from the said shop was two kilometers. On reaching the hospital he did not find any person from the family of the deceased. On making inquiry from the hospital he learnt that Sneh Lata had already expired and the dead body was lying in the dead house. He placed the dead body on the ice and left for his village and reached at 8.30 p.m. There he informed his mother about the death of Sneh Lata and also narrated it to PW-3 on his arrival at about 11.30 p.m. 15. Now the factum of burn injuries received by the deceased and also her death was in the know of the complainant and their family members on 29.6.1997 itself. Yet none of the family members reported the matter to the police on that day itself. Significantly PW-3 does not disclose the version given by PW-4 in his first statement. Significantly F.I.R. (Ext. PW 9/A) recorded on 30.6.1997 at about 4.00 p.m. was received by the Magistrate concerned only on 3.7.1997 at 11.00 a.m. There is no explanation for this delay. 9 16. It was not a case of simple crime which had taken place. Why the family members took time to report the matter to the police has not been explained. There is no dispute that the police station was approachable by road and the complainant party had a scooter which was used to visit the village of the accused persons. The police station falls on the way. In this background the message received in the police station acquires significance. What investigation did the police carry out before recording F.I.R. has also not been placed on record. Admittedly there is no dispute that deceased Sneh Lata suffered burn injuries in the house of accused No. 2 in village Gharjalot. Now why did the police not promptly visit the said village and examine the spot has not been explained. The police, as per material placed on record went to the spot only on 1.7.1997 and took into possession the articles in terms of memos Ext. PW 7/A and Ext. PW 7/B. In this background the statements of PW-7 and PW-9 gains importance. 17. Before proceeding to Pathankot PW-13 had simple information that a lady from village Gharjalot had suffered injuries. He had no other particulars. At Pathankot how he identified the said lady has not been explained by him. Further statement (Ext. PW 3/A) recorded at Pathankot at 12.10 p.m. is stated to have been sent to the police station, Haripur for registration of the F.I.R. Now who took the same to the police station has also not been explained. 10 18. For all the aforesaid reasons the manner in which the matter was reported to the police and the F.I.R. was registered renders the prosecution version to be doubtful. 19. From the statement of Dr. Sucha Singh (PW-1) it is evident that accused No. 2 had also suffered burn injuries to the extent of 25 to 30%. This also stands proved from the medical record (Ext. PW 1/A). Even PW-13 has stated that it had come in his investigation that the said accused had tried to extinguish the fire and in that process suffered burn injuries. The conduct of the accused persons noticeably renders their defence to be probable. 20. It has also come on record through the version of PW-3 and other witnesses of the complainant party that even though all the accused persons were residing in the same building but however accused Kuljit Singh was maintaining a separate kitchen and accused Geeta Devi used to reside with accused No. 1 and 3. 21. According to PW-3 on 29.6.1997 at 11.30 p.m. he was informed by one Sh. Rajinder Singh that his sister Sneh Lata had expired. He alongwith Sh. Pritam Singh, Sh. Prem Singh [both brother-in-law (jeejas)] and Sh. Bidhi Singh (chacha) went to village Gharjalot where he was informed by accused No. 4 that the deceased had suffered burn injuries due to bursting of the stove. Later on she changed her version and stated that the ‘duppatta’ worn by Sneh Lata had caught fire due to which she suffered burn injuries and died. Thereafter he went to the Pardhan Parkash Chand and lodged a report at Police Post Nagrota Surian. Now none 11 of the persons mentioned by him have been examined by the prosecution. Why so? has not been explained. He further states that the accused persons had not only demanded dowry but had also given beatings to Sneh Lata. But this version of his stands contradicted by his own statement Ext. PW 3/A wherein he names only accused No. 2. What was told to him by PW-4 and what transpired between him and the accused No. 4 is also not mentioned in the said complaint. It is not the case of the prosecution that the other accused persons had fled away from the spot or were otherwise not available. Whether he confronted accused No. 2 with the version given by accused No. 4 or not is also not evident from record. He also contradicted himself by stating that he had gone to Pathankot with Sh. Bishesher Singh whereas in his statement Ext. PW 3/A he states to have gone with Sh. Prem Singh. 22. Further in Court this witness has stated that on 15.3.1997 Sneh Lata had told him that the accused were demanding Rs. 15,000/- in cash. He assured her of making some arrangements and persuaded her to go back to her house. On 31.3.1997 he went to the house of accused No. 2 and handed over Rs. 10,000/- in cash. Now this version also stands contradicted by his earlier statement wherein it is categorically written that on 31.3.1997 Sneh Lata had told him that her husband had demanded Rs. 10,000/- and “on that very day itself”, after withdrawing the cash from the bank he had handed over the same to accused No. 2. Even this version stands contradicted by him in Court. He admits that he does not have any 12 bank account and the money was withdrawn from the account belonging to his mother Smt. Chanchala Devi (PW-6) who does not corroborate this version. She does not even mention about any amount was ever demanded or paid to accused Kuljit Singh. She does not even mention that she has any bank account. On record nothing has been proved as to in whose presence a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was either demanded or paid. 23. It is further the version of PW-3 that fifteen days prior to her death the deceased had come to his house and again narrated the ill-treatment meted out by the accused persons. Now this version, apart from being vague and unspecific does not find mention in his statement Ext. PW 3/A wherein it is simply recorded that accused No. 2 used to beat Sneh Lata who in turn used to make a grievance about the same. The allegation does not appear to be true. Even in the said statement he has merely expressed his apprehension that Sneh Lata may have committed suicide due to the acts of her husband. Noticeably he does not mention about the other accused persons. This witness admits that accused Kuljit Singh and the deceased used to visit them frequently and also stay during night. He further admits that no complaint was ever made to any authority about the maltreatment. Thus this witness cannot be said to be speaking the truth. He is not a trustworthy witness. 24. On the point of dowry demand and ill treatment the version of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 is more or less on the same lines. In our view even PW-4 has not come out with the whole truth. His 13 testimony does not inspire confidence. He has not named the shop keeper who informed him about the death of his sister. Having learnt about the same, it was highly abnormal conduct and behaviour on his part to have left his younger sister Bandana, in front of the shop. Admittedly the house of accused No. 2 was just at a distance of two kilometers from the said shop. Why did he believe an un-named shop keeper instead of proceeding to the house of accused No. 2 to ascertain complete truth has not been explained. Even he admits that both the deceased and the accused No. 2 used to visit them. Even he used to visit the house of accused No. 2 and spend the night there. It is not as though the relations between the parties were strained. Why Bandana has not been examined has not been explained. Why did he not inform the police or his mother on his way to Pathankot has not been explained. Admittedly his house falls on the way. His version also does not inspire confidence. PW-4 and PW-6 have stated that accused No. 2 used to give beatings to the deceased after consuming liquor which version has not been narrated by PW-3 and PW-5. 25. Also from the statements of the witnesses it is evident that they have made certain improvements and exaggerations. The version of PW-6 that she had informed the police that accused No. 1, 3 and 4 used to instigate accused No. 2 against the deceased is not so recorded in her statement (Mark-Y) recorded with the police with which she was confronted. Her further version that the accused had informed her that he never bothered for the ladies and would 14 throw his wife in a well is also an exaggeration. Similarly the version of PW-3 that upon reaching the house of accused in the morning of 30.6.1997 at about 4.00 a.m. he found the accused persons sleeping and the lights of the house switched off is not recorded in his statement Ext. PW 3/A. He was confronted with the same. The conversation which he had had with accused No. 4 relating to the circumstances leading to the death of Sneh Lata is also not recorded there. The factum of his visiting house of Pradhan Parkash Chand is also not recorded. 26. Importantly PW-3 has deposed that son of the deceased, Sh. Rohit had disclosed that accused No. 2 had brought a bottle of kerosene and poured it on his mother who thereafter set herself on fire by lighting a match stick. Now this boy, even though cited as a witness was not examined by the prosecution. There is no explanation for the same. For the reasons best known to it, the prosecution has also failed to examine Rajinder, Prem Singh, Parkash Chand, Rohit, Bandana and the shopkeeper, the people mentioned by the witnesses. 27. According to the prosecution witnesses deceased Sneh Lata was being maltreated for more than two years prior to her death. But none brought the matter about the alleged maltreatment to any of the authorities. 28. Applying the ratio of law to the instant facts it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case at all. It cannot be said that the accused persons either caused only cruelty or 15 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no clear and convincing material to prove to the contrary. 29. The accused persons have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 16 , 2010 (PK)