Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.272 of 1995. Dated of Decision: June 30, 2009. State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Govind Ram and others. ………. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Dy. Advocate General. For the Respondents: Sh. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J.(oral) : The acquittal of the respondents under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in case No.49- G/VII-1993, decided on 1.6.1994, has been challenged by the State in this appeal. The factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. The deceased Sushma got the compartment in the matriculation examination, thereafter she was married to respondent Govind Ram on 17.1.1999. Respondent Ramesh 2 Chand is the real brother of Govind Ram and Sarswati Devi is their mother. Asha Devi is wife of Ramesh chand aforesaid and respondent Falatu Ram is the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dhanoa. On 25.8.1991, PW3 Shashi Kanta, the youngest sister of the deceased was informed by Ramesh Chand about her illness. Smt. Shashi Kanta along with the brother of her husband visited the house of the respondents and she was found lying her sister Sushma dead. It is alleged that when she removed the cloth from the face of the deceased, she noticed one ligature mark on her neck and bleeding from the nose. Next morning respondent Falatu Ram, Pradhan Gram Panchayat insisted upon Shashi Kanta to give in writing that she did not suspect any foul play and dead-body be cremated, but she refused. However, at the instance of respondent Falatu Ram, the other respondents removed the dead-body and consigned it to flames. On 2.6.1991, PW1 Suresh Chand, the sister’s husband of the deceased came from Delhi and met Shashi Kanta. She informed him about entertaining the suspicion regarding the death of Sushma. Suresh Chand reported the 3 matter to the police and the FIR under the aforesaid sections was registered in Police Station Jawalamukhi. The police conducted the investigation and it came to light that the deceased was being harassed on account of bringing less dowry by her husband and other family members. The deceased was unable to sustain the cruelty and harassment, thus, committed suicide by hanging herself by the neck on 28.5.1991. Thereafter with the assistance of respondent No.5 Falatu Ram, Pradhan, the dead-body was cremated thereby the respondents also committed the offences of disappearance of evidence, as such, the challan was presented before the learned trial court. The respondents were accordingly charge- sheeted and put to trial. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted, which is under challenge. Of course, the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage and the death, other than normal circumstances. The allegation against the respondents family are that the deceased was being subjected to the cruelty and harassment by them in connection with the demand of dowry. 4 As a matter of fact, Section 498-A does not make each and every harassment a cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object, namely to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. Hence, mere harassment by itself is not cruelty and mere demand for property etc. by itself is also not cruelty. It is only where harassment is shown to have been committed for the purpose of coercing a woman to meet the demands that is ‘cruelty’ and this is made punishable under this section. The expression ‘soon before her death’ used in the substantive Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test. As already observed by the Apex Court in Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1242], no definite period has been indicated and the expression ‘soon before’ is not defined. A reference to expression ‘soon before’ used in Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act is relevant. The expression ‘soon before’ would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There 5 must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence. Testing on the aforesaid principle of law the evidence of the prosecution needs to be examined. PW1 Suresh Chand aforesaid stated that the deceased came to him at Delhi in the month of March, 1991 and resided there upto May, 1991. During this time, her husband Govind Ram had been visiting her. At that time, he was working at the ‘Airport’ and was not having suitable accommodation with him, but later, she with her husband while visiting their village, along with them came upto Jawalaji and on 30.5.1991, Om Parkash, brother-in-law of Sushma deceased received a telegram that she had expired. On 2.6.1991, when he came to know about this incident, he visited village Thural in the house of Shashi Kanta, sister of the deceased and enquired about the cause of her death, it was then she had revealed about a ligature mark on the neck and bleeding from 6 the nose of the deceased and she further told that it was not a natural death. Then he complained the matter to the police by moving an application Ex.PA. The perusal of the Ex.PA aforesaid does not make any reference about the complainant being informed by Shashi Kanta. He admitted that this statement was being given by him for the first time in the court and he further stated about the information regarding the demand of dowry was given by her to him a week before the deceased left for her village for the last time with her husband in the month of May, 1991 in absence of her husband. Significantly, he also stated that during the time she remained with him, she did not disclose this fact to him or anybody else with regard to the demand of dowry and mal-treatment by her in-laws. He admitted that the father of the deceased was also suffering from the mental disease and admitted that the deceased was being treated in civil hospital Bhoranj for depression. He further admitted that the sister of the deceased Sulakshna was married to him and she too was suffering from mental ailment during March till the month of May when the deceased had been residing with him. He further stated 7 that the deceased had been taking the medicine as prescribed by the doctor in civil hospital Bhoranj for such ailment, which fact was not mentioned by him in the complaint Ex.PA. PW2 Subhadra Devi, who was well known to deceased also admitted in her cross- examination, that the deceased after the marriage was suffering from the mental ailment, for which she was getting treatment in civil hospital at Bhoranj. She further admitted that when she had died, she remained throughout the night in the house of the deceased and next morning Pradhan was called and he asked Smt. Shashi Kanta to give in writing that she did not suspect any foul play. She further admitted that all the respondents also told that there was no foul play and the dead body could be cremated. A close relative of deceased, namely Puran was also present at that time, but he did not say anything. She further admitted that the case against the respondents was only registered after the visit of Suresh Chand (PW1) from Delhi. Although PW3 Shashi Kanta stated about finding of ligature mark and stated to have a blue scar on the person of the deceased, but 8 at the same time she revealed that the decease was a patient of hypertension and mental tension and she was being treated in Civil Hospital Bhoranj, where after she became normal. She was also confronted with her statement Ex.DA, recorded by the police, wherein the allegation of bringing less dowry did not find mentioned, whereas there was a reference about the mental sickness of the deceased. She clearly admitted that her husband used to bring the medicine from Bhoranj hospital for the mental ailment of the deceased and this treatment continued till her death. PW5 Gulaba Ram also corroborates the story of her mental ailment and the treatment being provided to her. Even Govind Ram respondent is stated to have handed over the left over medicines to the police which were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PC. He further admitted that the deceased used to get the fits and had been running away from the house and during that time even she used to attack the persons coming across her. PW6 Ludar Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police admitted that the medicines which were being given to Sushma deceased were in relation of her treatment of mental ailment 9 from which she was suffering and during the investigation of the case, he also came to know that the deceased had been getting the attacks of mental fits and her father was also suffering from the same disease. On reappraising the evidence aforesaid, we are unable to find any evidence worth inspiring confidence with respect to the fact that the deceased was being treated with cruelty or was at any time harassed in connection with the demand of dowry. There is constant and overwhelming evidence in the form of PWs 1 to 3,5 and 6 that the deceased was suffering from the mental ailment. Even her another sister as well as father were also suffering from the same chronic disease. The deceased was getting the treatment for her mental treatment in Civil Hospital Bhoranj as she was having occasional fits and used to became violent during such fits, therefore, the possibility of committing suicide by herself in the aforesaid circumstance can not be ruled out which is rightly so held by the trial court. Smt. Shashi Kanta and other close relatives of the deceased had been present throughout the night with the dead-body, 10 nobody had either any grouse or there any complaint with respect to the cruelty or harassment even for that matter suspecting the foul play by the respondents. Thus for the reasons aforesaid, the evidence led by the prosecution does not fall within the parameters of the principle of law laid down by the apex court, as discussed above. As such, we do not find any fault in findings of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, which are reasonable and borne out from the record. As such, the appeal merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds, entered upon by them at any stage during the proceeding of this case. Send down the records. (Deepak Gupta) Judge June 30, 2009. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.