1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 452 of 2002 Decided on: September 2, 2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Ravinder Kumar & ors ….Respondent. 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. Adld. AG with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh Thakur & Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge: The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una acquitting respondents herein for the offences under section 306, 498-A read with section 34 IPC. 2. The case set out against the respondents herein is that on 7.8.1998, a complaint was submitted by (PW-1) Bimla Devi to the Superintendent of Police, Una, alleging that on 6.2.1998 her daughter Reeta Devi was Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 married to the accused Ravinder Kumar, who according to her was unemployed, was maltreating her daughter. She is alleged to have been beaten up on 22.3.1998. The deceased was brought by brother PW-2 Ritesh Kumar to her parents house. The deceased expressed her unwillingness to go back to in-laws house since the accused and his family members had threatened to kill her. This complaint was originally addressed to the Chairman, Human Rights Commission, HP, Shimla. The complainant (PW-1) Bimla Devi states that she had been informed that Ravinder Kumar (accused) was employed with the Home Guards, though in fact he was unemployed. All the personal belongings of the deceased had been squandered by the accused, who was stated to be a drunkard and used to beat up the deceased under the influence of liquor. She also states that her son Ritesh (PW-2) had witnessed the accused Ravinder Kumar beating her up and thrashing her on 22.3.1998 and she was thereafter immediately brought to her parents house where she stayed from March 23 to April 17,1998. During this period, she had complained that she was threatened by her husband and in-laws with dire consequences, including death in case she 3 does not bring enough money as dowry. She was in a state of shock and did not want to go back to her in- laws house. She was sent back to her in laws house with an assurance that she will not be maltreated. 3. On 24.4.1998 at about 7.30 AM when the complainant was preparing to go to the school where she was working as water carrier. Ashwani Kumar, brother-in-law of the accused informed her that her daughter was serious and admitted in the hospital at Thanna Kalan. She rushed to that place where she was informed that Reeta-deceased had been taken to Una. There she found her daughter lying dead in the hospital and was informed that she had died on 23.4.1998 at around 8.30 PM. On inquiry made, she was informed that she had consumed poison in the absence of the family members of the in-laws. She was in a state of shock and was made to sign papers by the police in whom she reposed full trust. As no action was taken, she suspected that they were trying to shield the accused and on 5.5.1998 she filed a complaint before the Chairman, State Women Commission, Shimla, but no action was taken. Thereafter, she approached the Human Rights Commission. 4 4. The prosecution produced nine witnesses in support of its case. Adverting to the evidence, learned trial court holds that there was no dispute about the date of marriage between the deceased and Ravinder- accused on 6.2.1998 according to Hindu customs, rites and ceremonies. It has also not been disputed that the cause of death of Reeta-deceased was by consuming aluminium phosphate at the house of her in-laws. The point of determination before the learned trial court was whether the deceased had been subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A as she had died 2 ½ months after her marriage by purportedly committing suicide. 5. Bimla Devi, mother of the deceased, appeared as PW-1 and stated with respect to the factum of solemnization the marriage of the deceased and that she used to be taunted for having brought insufficient dowry. On 15.3.1998 when her son Ritesh (PW-2) had gone to meet Reeta to bring her to her parental house, he witnessed the accused beating her up. On 17.3.1998 she came home with him and informed her mother (PW-1) Bimla that she was beaten up for bringing insufficient dowry. After some days Ashwani 5 Kumar, brother-in-law of the accused had apologized to her and assured her that no such maltreatment would be meted out to her in future and in these circumstances she was allowed to return to her in-laws house. On 24.4.1998, Onkar Chand informed her that her daughter was admitted to the hospital at Thanna Kalan. Before she could rush to the hospital, she was informed that her daughter had been taken to Una for treatment. There she found the deceased’s father-in-law, brother-in- law, some members of the Panchayt and the police party. They informed her “that whatever had to happen had happened” and she was asked by the police to append her signatures on some papers which she did reposing full trust and belief in them. Thereafter letter Ex PW-1/B was received by Bimla Devi, mother of the Reeta-deceased, written by her daughter prior to her death. Complaint made to Human Rights Commission is Ex PW-1/A, detaling these facts. 5. PW-2 Ritesh Kumar has also supported the case of the prosecution. He also proved on record letter Ex PW-1/B handwriting of Reeta and her personal Diary Ex PW-1/C written in her hand. He also states that he had questioned the husband of the deceased as also the 6 mother-in-law that as to why she was beaten up, but was informed that it is a common features in the villages. We find this rather strange as in his cross-examination he admits that the deceased was not beaten up in his presence as he was sleeping at that time and did not tell the accused anything with respect his aggressive behaviour etc. We refer to his cross examination, which demolishes the entire examination-in-chief. The material part of his cross-examination reads:- “……. Mera samne muljaman Ravinder Kumar ne Reeta Devi ko na pita tha. Mein us wakt soya tha. Maine apni mata to na bataya tha ki muljamano na mera samne mar pit kari. Mein 15,16,17 teen dino tak wahan raha. Mera same mulzaman ne Reeta ko koi tane ne diya. Mulzaman ne meri behan to dahej ke karan tang na kiya gaya……” Transliteration “………Accused Ravinder did not beat up Reeta Devi in my presence. I was sleeping at that time. I did not tell to my mother that the accused had beaten up my sister in my presence. I stayed in the house for 3 days, 15,16 and 17. The accused did not taunt the deceased in my presence……” 7 6. In any event, we turn to the evidence of the record as it is and even if accepted on its face value, we proceed to consider as to whether it constitutes offence under section 498 A read with Section 306 and or also attracts the provisions of section 113-A of the Evidence Act or 113-B as the death has occurred within 2 ½ months after the marriage. The main thrust of the prosecution case is Ex PW-1/B letter which is the precursor of the entire prosecution against the respondents. It is smudged. In this the deceased writes to her mother that she was living in terrible condition(s) so much so she was threatened with death. She writes that she could be shot dead any time or burnt alive with kerosene oil. She was under a lot of strain and being the sufferer only she knew the terrible trauma though which she was passing. However, we also find Exts DA and DB two letters on the record addressed by her to her father-in-law. The first letter is dated 24.3.1998 and the second letter seems to be undated. In both these letters she expresses her unreserved affection and respect for her father in law and she goes to the extent of saying that she treats her in laws as her mother and 8 father and was asking them to have telephone installed in the house. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the case in hand and adverting to Ext PW-1/B, we do not find that on the evidence on record, it constitutes a complaint about cruelty made by the deceased to her mother. The evidence on record is also insufficient to attract the presumption under the Evidence Act. We find that the two letters Ex DA and DB coupled with the cross examination of PW-2 completely destroys the case of the prosecution. We are in agreement with the learned trial court when it says that no complaint was made by Bimla Devi at the earliest at the time when the inquest report was prepared in her presence or at the cremation ground where she accompanied the dead body or prior to that on the morning of 24.4.1998 when she had reached Una hospital and found her daughter dead. There is nothing on record to show that she was under some kind of duress or threat. If the evidence and testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 are accepted as being the gospel truth stated by them, we are at a loss to understand that when these facts regarding the beatings etc given to deceased were in the knowledge of PW-1 and PW-2, why a 9 complaint prior to the death of Reeta was not made to any person. Even ignoring that, it is absolutely strange that all the witnesses have not stated anything to the police either at Una hospital or when the inquest report Ex PW-8/B was prepared or at the cremation ground. There is no explanation with respect to the two letters addressed by the deceased to her father in law expressing her unreserved affection and respect to him and expressing concern about their health. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any mis-appreciation of evidence or a perverse conclusion being arrived at by the learned trial court on the facts of the case. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 7. The bail bonds, furnished are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 2nd September, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud ),J. (sl)