IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADES, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.39 of 1999 Date of decision:18.5.2010 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Bimla Devi and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr.Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. For the Complainant: Mr.Parveen Chandel, Advocate vice Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 5.10.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Paramjit Kaur was married to accused Kewal Krishan. Accused Bihari Lal and Bimla Devi are the parents of Kewal Krishan i.e. in-laws of the deceased. Rakesh Kumar and Satish Kumar are brothers of Kewal Krishan i.e. brother-in-laws of 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 the deceased. The marriage between Paramjit Kaur and Kewal Krishan took place on 1.12.1996. It is not disputed that the deceased Paramjit Kaur committed suicide by consuming aluminum phosphate within three months of her marriage. On 24th February, 1997 PW-1 Des Raj, father of the deceased filed a complaint with the police that his daughter was forced to commit suicide because of the ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused. His case was that the husband and in-laws of the deceased used to ill-treat the deceased because she had brought insufficient dowry. On the basis of this complaint, FIR Ext.PB was lodged and investigation was carried out. Post mortem of the deceased was conducted and it was found that deceased had actually died by consuming aluminum phosphate vide post mortem report Ext.PK. Thereafter, the accused was challaned and charged with having committed the aforesaid offences. They have been acquitted by the learned trial court. Hence, the present appeal. There are basically two sets of evidence in this case. The first set is the writings of the deceased herself. Note 3 Ext.D-2 was recovered by the police during investigation. PW-1 Des Raj, father of the deceased, admitted that this note is in the hand-writing of his daughter. This is a note obviously written by the deceased just before she committed suicide. The translation of the note would be as follows: “Kewal, please forgive me because I shall never return. My belongings may be sent to my parents. I have no grievance with you. Kewal, Pummy I love you.” This note written by the deceased obviously just before she committed suicide does not enlighten us as to what led her to take this drastic step. It is however clear that the deceased has not even indicated that she was being troubled by her in-laws. As far as the husband is concerned she clearly has no grievance against him. Another document which is on record is Ext.D-1 which is an undated letter but from the postal stamp it is obvious that it was posted some time in the year 1997. Therefore, this letter must have been written between 1st January, 1997 and 22nd/23rd February, 1997. It also appears that this letter was sent from the parental house of the deceased and not from her matrimonial house because the first half of this letter was written by her sister 4 Seema in which the accused has been addressed as ‘Jija ji’. The second half of the letter is written by the deceased. In this also she has expressed her love for the accused Kewal and asked him to reply to her letter at the earliest. Even in this letter she has not expressed any grievance in regard to her in-laws. There is no complaint of any ill-treatment by the in-laws. The second set of evidence is the statements of the father Des Raj PW-1, Pradhan Gian Chand PW-3 and Jai Parkash, Secretary of the Panchayat PW-11. According to the father, the deceased after her marriage came home on three occasions. On every occasion she complained that her in-laws and her husband were ill-treating her since she had brought insufficient dowry. This statement does not appear to be correct because of the suicide note Ext.D-2 and the letter Ext.D-1 to which we have already adverted to hereinabove. According to the father when his daughter, the deceased, complained about the ill-treatment, he made a written complaint to PW-3 Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Before dealing with this aspect of the matter it would be pertinent to mention that in the FIR lodged by PW-1 there is no mention of this complaint Ext.PA. If this 5 complaint had actually been made by this witness prior to the lodging of the FIR on 24.2.1997, he would have in the natural course of event, mentioned this fact to the police. It is no doubt true that the FIR is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of the events but it is expected that the major facts are given in the FIR. In the present case, we are dealing with a father who was lodging a complaint that he suspected that his daughter was forced to commit suicide because her in- laws were ill-treating her for bringing insufficient dowry. In such a case, if he only a week earlier had filed a complaint in this regard with the Pradhan concerned, we see no reason, why he would have failed to mention this fact in the FIR itself. PW-3 Pradhan of the Panchayat and Secretary PW- 11 have supported the father with regard to the factum of the filing of the complaint. But the other contemporaneous evidence belies their version. In proof of the complaint having been filed, the prosecution has proved complaint Ext.PA. This complaint is dated 14.2.1997 and bears the signatures of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Badehar dated 16th February, 1997. To this extent the case of the prosecution is supported by this 6 document. In this document it is also mentioned that the daughter of the complainant Des Raj was being troubled by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. If it is proved that such a complaint was made it could be a ground to be used against the accused. However, on going through the entire evidence we feel that this complaint had not actually been made on 16.2.1997; firstly, as mentioned above, there is no mention of this document in the FIR; secondly, the prosecution has relied upon the register of letters received by the Panchayat extract of which is Ext.PI. PW-3 in cross examination admitted that prior to the entry Ext.PI, there were 38 entries in the register, the last of which was dated 19.2.1994. Thereafter, there is a blank page and the next entry is in respect of the complaint Ext.PA. This entry Ext.PI is dated 19.2.1997. It cannot be believed that for 3 years no letter was received in the Panchayat. If the version of the prosecution is to be accepted then no letter was received in the Panchayat from 19.2.1994 to 19.2.1997. This is totally unbelievable. In fact this register produced in the Court did not contain any entry after the disputed entry of 19.2.1997. This is the sole entry after three years. Thus, it is obvious that the entry Ext.PI is a manipulated 7 entry made after lodging of the FIR. It appears that since no entry with regard to this complaint would be made in the actual register the old register of the year 1994 was taken out and the entry was made in that. No reliance can be placed on the complaint Ext.PA since it is highly doubtful whether such a complaint was filed prior to the death of the deceased. If this complaint is excluded then there is no evidence of ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. May 18, 2010 ( Rajiv Sharma ), J. PV