IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 270/2000 Date of decision: 9.12. 2010 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Shingara Singh and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . yes For the Appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajinider Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondents were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code, as such the State made a challenge to their acquittal in the instant appeal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Shingara Singh died. Vide order 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - dated 25.11.2010, appeal against him stood abated. 3. Respondent Paramjit Singh did not put in appearance despite service as such he has been brought today pursuant to the non-bailable warrants issued against him. He is duly represented by Shri Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. 4. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 5. Precisely, the case which emerges from the evidence on record can be stated thus. Manjit Kaur @ Surinder Kaur (deceased) was married to Satnam Singh son of PW1 Ujjagar Singh. Satnam Singh was serving in B.S.F, in the year 1997 he was posted in Amritsar. Manjit Kaur (deceased) used to reside in the upper story whereas respondents were residing in the ground floor of the same building. 6. On 24.3.1997, about 6 p.m., father of the deceased PW1 Ujjagar Singh was informed that his daughter Manjit Kaur had consumed some poison and is hospitalized at Una. On hearing this news, immediately he visited the said Hospital along with Gopal Singh. On reaching Hospital and on - 3 - having asked the deceased, she is alleged to have complained him that she was tortured and maltreated by the respondents, which she could not tolerate and consumed the poison. After about two hours, Manjit Kaur died. 6. The matter was already reported to the Police. Police was present in the Hospital. Statement of Ujjagar Singh under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, which culminated into FIR Ext. PB. The autopsy of the dead body was conducted by PW7 Dr. V.S. Minhas. Post mortem report is Ext. PW/1. 7. Viscera were sent for forensic examination. As per report Ext. PC, the contents of aluminum phosphide were detected therein. 8. Police record the statements of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the respondents were involved in the case for the said offences as such they were arrested and later granted bail, the challan was presented in the court for their trial. - 4 - 9. Respondents were accordingly charge sheeted. They abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 10. To prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 Ujjagar Singh, PW2 Charan Singh, PW3 Rakha Singh, PW4 Didar Singh, PW5 Smt. Tarsem Kaur and PW6 Gurdas Ram besides examining Doctors and other formal witnesses, including the Investigating Officer. 11. Respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon them. 12. When called upon to enter into their defence, no evidence in defence was led. 13. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted on the ground that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not worth inspiring confidence and the evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the charges is too hollow and dubious to bring around that the respondents abetted the commission of suicide by Manjit Kaur and that they treated her with cruelty. - 5 - 14. Heard and gone through the evidence on record. 14. On reappraisal of the evidence on record, we agree with the findings of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. PW1 Ujjagar Singh testified that deceased Manjit Kaur was married to Satnam Singh and was residing with the respondents as her husband was in B.S.F. posted out side. About six months prior to her death, she had separated from the joint family. Brothers of Satnam Singh were residing at Talwara with their respective families. He also stated that whenever she visited her parental house, she complained against her father-in-law that he used to pester her after taking liquor. He also stated that deceased was living in the upper portion of the house whereas respondents were residing in the lower portion of the same house. He did testify about the complaints being made to her as initially alleged in the statement Ext. PA. To this effect, he was sought to be contradicted by the learned Public Prosecutor but permission was not granted. - 6 - 15. In cross examination he stated that when he reached the Hospital two police Men were also present and his daughter was absolutely unconscious. He asked the doctor to record her statement. But the other evidence, discussed hereinafter shows that she remained unconscious from the time of her admission in the Hospital till her death. 16. PW4 Didar Singh, brother of the deceased, was also examined. He stated that respondent Shingara Singh had been hurling abuses to the deceased at times and he had complained about the conduct of the respondents to her husband. On this, he retaliated that his father was a mad man. He further stated that no complaint was made to the President of the Gram Panchayat or any other responsible persons about the alleged maltreatment being meted out to her. He further stated that when deceased was brought to the Hospital in an unconscious condition, said Gurdas Ram was also with him. Manjit Kaur allegedly stated to him that respondent Paramjit had come to the upper story where she was living and wielded darat and told her that - 7 - either she should take some pesticide than preferred to be killed by him. By saying these words, she breathed her last. When confronted with his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in cross-examination, he stated that he did not make this mention to the Police during the investigation of this case. Further his statement stands also contradicted with Ext. PF whereby the Investigating Officer had applied to the Medical Officer at the same day at 7.05 p.m. to certify whether the deceased was fit to make the statement. To this effect, doctor made an endorsement on the said application that she was ‘not fit’ to make statement. Even PW1 did not substantiate the allegations initially made in Ext. PA. He also did not say during the trial when he reached the Hospital, deceased was in a fit state to make the statement. 17. We also find that PW5 Tarsem Kaur mother of the deceased did not attribute any maltreatment against any of the respondents rather she stated that respondent Shingara did not abuse her at any time in her presence and further that - 8 - none of the respondents had demanded any dowry in kind or cash. 18. PW6 Gurdass Ram, President of the Panchayat expressed his ignorance about the fact that whether Manjit Kaur was married at village Dehlan. But he categorically stated that PW1 Ujjagar Singh and any brother of his family had never told him that deceased was being maltreated at the house of her in-laws. He also stated that he was informed about having taking poison by the deceased and he accompanied Didar Singh, her brother to the Hospital. On reaching there, one boy had informed that Manjit Kaur was alive but the Police Men were not recording her statement. Thereafter they met the Deputy Commissioner concerned, who assured that the police will do the needful but when they reached the hospital, she had already died. He stated that he did not remember whether the Police had recorded any statement of the deceased or not. 19. PW2 Charan Singh, Pradhan of village Panchayat Upper Dehlan and PW3 Rakha Singh both did not support the case of the prosecution to the effect that - 9 - deceased had also made only complaint to them rather they disown the statements alleged to have given to the police during the investigation of this case. 20. On examining the matter cautiously and carefully, we do not find it a case worth the name to conclude the charges under Section 498-A and 306 Indian penal Code. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court, recording acquittal of the respondents are borne out from the evidence on record which requires no interference. Hence the appeal sans merits and is accordingly dismissed. 21. Respondent Paramjit Singh, who is in custody of the Police brought before us pursuant to the non-bailable warrants, as he failed to put in appearance despite service, is hereby ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appeal stands disposed of. (R.B Misra), Judge December 9, 2010 (Surinder Singh), (cm) Judge.