IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.143 of 1994 Decided on : May 1, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Sansaro Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Pt. Om Prakash, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State is aggrieved by the judgment of the Sessions Court, whereby respondents, Sansaro Devi, the mother-in-law, Satish Kumar, brother-in-law, Suman Lata and Pawna Devi, both sisters-in-law of deceased Sunita Kumari, have been acquitted of the charge, under Sections 304-B and 498-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution version may be noticed. Deceased Sunita Kumari was married to Suresh son of respondent Sansaro Devi, and brother of the other respondents, Satish Kumar, Suman Lata and Pawna Devi, in the year 1987. On 30th September, 1989, Sunita Kumari committed suicide by standing on railway track and getting herself hit by a running train. PW-7 Om Prakash was driving the train, which hit the deceased. He saw the deceased standing between the parallel lines of the railway track. He applied Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… emergency brake, but before the train could come to a halt, the deceased was hit. She died almost instantaneously. He reported the matter to the guard and dead body was handed over to the Pradhan of the Panchayat of the area. Police was informed. Inquest was conducted on 1st October, 1989, by PW-18 Amar Chand, ASI of Railway Police Baijnath-Paprola. In the inquest report, it was recorded that besides the husband of the deceased, named Suresh Kumar, her father PW-3 Milap Chand was present and that both of them told that the deceased had been suffering from epilepsy and it appeared that because of the said ailment, which, despite prolonged treatment could not be cured, she committed suicide. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. A number of injuries were found on the dead body. Doctor opined that the cause of death was shock due to multiple injuries and fractures. Time gab between the death and postmortem was opined to be 6 to 22 hours. Death was reported to have taken place instantaneously with the receipt of the injuries. 3. No complaint was lodged with the police by the parents or any other relative of the deceased. However, one petition was addressed to the Chief Minister. Copy of the said petition is Ex. P-7. This purports to be dated 5th October, 1989. In the said petition, it was alleged that the deceased had been killed by the respondents, who used to subject her to physical and mental torture, because of her having not been given sufficient dowry, at the time of her marriage and after killing her the dead body was thrown on the railway track. It was alleged that the father of the deceased was mentally retarded and that he was sent to the place of the respondents after the death of the deceased, when someone from …3… the village of the respondents came and informed that the deceased was seriously ill and had been remembering her father. A brother of the deceased was also sought to be sent with the father of the deceased to her in-laws’ place, on getting the aforesaid information, as the father was unable to take care of himself, but it was pretended that there was no room for him in the vehicle, as it was already overloaded. Despite that, a brother of the deceased boarded the vehicle but on the way he was made to deboard and to return to his place. 4. It appears that the aforesaid petition was marked to the superior police Officers by the office of the Chief Minister. Senior Railway Police Officers made enquiries, but probably the mother of the deceased, PW-1 Manbhari, was not satisfied. She then filed a complaint Ex. P-1 before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur, which was forwarded to the police. Case was formally registered at Police Station, Palampur, on the basis of the aforesaid complaint Ex. P-1, vide FIR Ex. P-23. In the said complaint, nine persons were named as accused. Besides the four respondents, other persons named in the complaint were Suresh Kumar, the husband of the deceased, one Vinod Kumar, one Santosh Kumar, one Pinki Devi and one Manju Devi. Santosh Kumar, Pinki Devi and Manju Devi are the son and daughters of Munshi Ram, a brother of the father-in- law of the deceased. In the said complaint, it was alleged that Suresh Kumar, the husband, Sansaro Devi, the mother-in-law, Pawna Devi and Suman Lata, both sisters-in-law, and respondent Satish Kumar, a brother-in-law of the deceased, started ill-treating the deceased, at the instigation of the other named accused, i.e., the son and two daughters of said Munshi Ram and respondent Vinod …4… Kumar, because their demand for dowry had not been met. It was alleged that the deceased used to demand television and refrigerator etc. It was alleged that on the fateful day deceased Sunita had been killed, in furtherance of a conspiracy hatched by all the persons, named in the complaint, and the dead body was thrown on the railway track. 5. During the course of investigation, two letters Ex. P-3 and P-4, allegedly written by the deceased to her father, were produced to the police alongwith a note-book Ex. P-5, allegedly in the hand of the deceased. The same were produced by PW-1 Manbhari, the mother of the deceased, from her house. Police got the writings on the aforesaid two letters compared with the writings in the note-book Ex. P-5. Handwriting expert PW-17 B.R. Sharma reported that the two letters and the writings in the note-book were in the hand of the same person. Prosecution examined a fellow- student of the deceased, namely PW-6 Anil Kumar, who testified that the aforesaid three writings are in the hand of the deceased. 6. Prosecution examined, besides PW-1 Manbhari, the mother of the deceased, sister PW-5 Savita, father PW-3 Milap Chand and brother PW-4 Rakesh Kumar of the deceased. The mother of the deceased stated that the deceased used to complain that she was being subjected to beatings, ill-treatment and was even not provided food for days together by the respondents, but this fact was not disclosed to PW-3 Milap Chand, the father of the deceased, because of his being a heart patient. 7. Trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution version and acquitted all the respondents. …5… 8. We have been taken through the evidence adduced by the prosecution as also the statements of the respondents, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the learned Additional Advocate General. Submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel representing the respondents have been considered by us, in the light of the evidence on record. 9. PW-1 Manbhari, the mother of the deceased, is shown to be a liar of the first water. Inquest was conducted on 1st October, 1989 in the presence of PW-3 Milap Chand, the father of the deceased. As per summary of facts gathered, on enquiry, on the spot, as recorded in the inquest report Ex. P-13, the husband of the deceased, Suresh Kumar, and the father of the deceased PW-3 Milap Chand told that the deceased was upset because of her incurable disease of epilepsy and it appeared that because of her aforesaid state of mind she committed suicide. Now, when the father of the deceased had informed PW-18 ASI Amar Chand, who conducted the inquest, that the deceased appeared to have committed suicide because of her being upset, on account of her being a patient of incurable epilepsy, it appears that PW-1 Manbhari, the mother of the deceased, was not satisfied with what her husband had told the said ASI. She started cooking up stories to get rid of what PW-3 Milap Chand had told the Police Officer, who conducted the inquest, namely PW-18 ASI Amar Chand. Initially, she concocted the story that PW-3 Milap Chand was mentally retarded and taking undue advantage of the mental state of PW-3 Milap Chand, the respondents manipulated that only he was present at the time of the inquest and that even though a son of Milap Chand was …6… accompanying him when he was going to the village of the respondents, on getting the information that his daughter was seriously sick and was remembering him, he (that son) was dropped midway. This story was stated in petition Ex. P-7, which was addressed to the Chief Minister. While in the witness-box as PW-1, Manbhari appears to have forgotten about this story. In the Court, she stated that her husband was sent to the in-laws of the deceased, when three persons from that village came to the village and told that deceased was sick and remembering her father. She stated that when her husband did not return even on the third day, two boys from the village were sent to bring her husband back home and her husband on return told that the deceased had been done to death by her in-laws and thrown on the railway line. She did not say that her husband was mentally retarded or he did not possess a sound mind. On the contrary, what she stated was that her husband was suffering from heart ailment and because of that he was not informed of the complaints, which the deceased used to make to her. This story she introduced, for the first time, when in the witness-box, again to wriggle out of what her husband PW-3 Milap Chand told PW-18 ASI Amar Chand, at the time of the inquest. In the inquest, there was no allegation of any maltreatment of the deceased, leave alone the allegation of such treatment, on account of insufficiency of dowry. This version of PW-1 Manbhari is also not believable. 10. Deceased is alleged to have written two letters Ex. P-3 and P-4 about the alleged maltreatment at the hands of the respondents. Both the letters are addressed to PW-3 Milap Chand, the father of the deceased. Now, if the letters are addressed to him, the presumption is that the letters were delivered to him and if it is so …7… he must have read the same. If the letters were actually in existence, at the time when the deceased died and PW-3 Milap Chand, the father of the deceased, had presumably read their contents, he must have made a mention thereof to PW-18 ASI Amar Chand, at the time of the inquest. However, in the inquest report Ex. P-13 there is no reference to these letters. In the petition, Ex. P-7 also, which was sent to the Chief Minister on 5th October, 1989 there is no reference to these two letters. In the complaint, Ex. P-1, also, which was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate on 16th January, 1990, or say 3½ months after the occurrence, these letters do not find any mention. Letters were produced by PW-1 Manbhari to the police alongwith note-book Ex. P-5 in the month of September, 1990 or say about a year after the occurrence. One letter purports to be dated 6th February, 1989 and the other dated 10th August, 1989. Non- mention of the letters in the inquest report Ex. P-13 or the petition sent to the Chief Minister, Ex. P-7, or the complaint Ex. P-1 filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, on 16th January, 1990, and their production to the police as late as in September, 1990, i.e., about a year after the occurrence, speak volumes of “genuineness” of the two letters. Also, we find that probably the note-book Ex. P-5 is not that of the deceased. The name written on the front side of the hard covering of the note-book has been tampered with by overwriting. It appears that initially the name written was different, which is not decipherable. Also, nobody has testified if the note-book was of deceased Sunita. 11. Besides relying upon the opinion evidence of PW-17 B.R. Sharma, Handwriting Expert, the prosecution also examined two witnesses, namely PW-5 Savita, a sister of the deceased, and …8… PW-6 Anil Kumar, a fellow-student of the deceased, to prove that the letters Ex. P-3 and P-4 were in the hand of the deceased and note- book Ex. P-5 also pertained to her. PW-5 Savita though stated that letters Ex. P-3 and P-4 and the writings in the note-book Ex. P-5 were in the hand of the deceased, in the cross-examination, she stated that she would not be in a position to pick up letters Ex. P-3 and P-4 by identifying them to be in the hand of her sister, if the same were mixed with a number of letters. PW-6 Anil Kumar even though stated in the examination-in-chief that the letters and the writings in the note-book were in the hand of the deceased, in his cross-examination he stated that the deceased had never given her note-book, though she had been taking his own note-books. He stated that the police had shown him the letters and the note-book and told that the same were written by the deceased and so he had made the statement like that. 12. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J May 1, 2008(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J