1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 112 of 1994 Date of decision: 11.03.2008 ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant. -vs- Ishwas Dass and another Respondents. __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No . For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Yoginder. Paul, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) State has appealed against the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby the respondents who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Section 306 and 498-A, I.P.C., have been acquitted. Allegations on which the respondents were put on trial are like this: Deceased Sarita Devi was married to respondent Ishwar Dass in June, 1990. Initially for about one year, she was treated well but thereafter the respondent Ishwar Dass, as also respondent Pano Devi, who is the wife of the elder brother of respondent Ishwar Dass, started ill-treating her. She was not given food to her fill and was taunted every now and then that she did not know the house-hold chores. In the month of July 1991, PW2 Pran Nath, the father of the deceased, received a letter allegedly written by Vinod, a son of respondent Pano Devi, in which it was stated that the deceased was sick. PW2 Pran Nath then went to the house of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 the respondents in village Kumand and found the deceased hale and hearty. This was on 24th July, 1991. After some time, Chuhru Ram (PW3) to whose son a daughter of respondent Pano Devi is married, also reached the house of the respondents. He was accompanied by the daughter of Pano Devi, who is married to his son. Respondents are alleged to have quarreled with Pran Nath (PW2) the father of the deceased in the presence of Chuhru Ram and to have taunted him that he had not taught any house-hold work to his daughter. On 17-8-1991, deceased consumed aluminum phosphide and died. The matter was reported to the Police by her father Pran Nath vide statement Exhibit- PC, under Section 154, Cr.P.C. Police went to the spot. Inquest in respect of the dead body of the deceased was conducted. Dead Body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Doctor, namely PW8 Dr. D.S. Chandel who conducted the post-mortem examination, sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner. Aluminum phosphide was detected in the viscera by the Chemical Examiner, per report Exhibit-PG. On the completion of the investigation, both the respondents were challaned. Trial Court has concluded that the evidence on record does not prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or that the commission of suicide by her was abetted by the two respondents or either of them. State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal and has, therefore, filed the present appeal. We have perused the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find that there is absolutely no evidence in support of the allegation that the deceased used to be subjected to cruelty by the respondents. Prosecution sought to prove the charge by examining three neighbours of the respondents, namely, Prem Chand (PW5), Nirmala (PW6) and 3 Duni Chand (PW7). All of them have turned hostile. They stated that the relations between the respondents and the deceased were normal and there was no estrangement between the deceased on one side and the respondents on the other. The father and the mother of the deceased namely, PW2 Pran Nath and PW9 Raj Kumari have not stated that the deceased ever complained of physical torture. Pran Nath (PW2), the father of the deceased, says that the deceased never made any complaint to him. Raj Kumari (PW9) initially stated that the deceased never made any complaint to her after the marriage, but in the later part of the statement, she stated that in March/April, 1991 when the deceased accompanied by her husband respondent Ishwar Dass visited her place for two-three days, she complained that she was not provided enough food and that this complaint was made by her when she enquired as to what was the cause of her having grown weak. We find no mention in the earliest version Exhibit-PC which was given to the Police that the deceased made any such complaint to her mother during her visit in the month of March/April, 1991. Not only this, the testimony of Pran Nath (PW2), the father of the deceased, falsifies the testimony of the mother. The witness has very categorically stated that the marriage of the deceased with respondent Ishwar Dass had taken place in June, 1990 and that for about one year, the relations between respondent Ishwar Dass and his daughter remained cordial. If it is so, the question of the deceased complaining to her mother in March/April, 1991 that she was not properly fed does not arise. Learned Additional Advocate General has taken us through the testimony of Rajnish (PW10) besides the statement of Pran Nath (PW2) in support of the charge of abetment of suicide against the respondents. 4 He has referred to that portion of the statement of Pran Nath (PW2) wherein it is stated that on 24-7-1991 when he went to the place of the respondents on getting letter Exhibit-P1 written by a son of Pano Devi, the respondents quarreled with him and taunted him that his daughter did not know any house-hold work and also demanded a sum of rupees 15,000/- which was allegedly lying in fixed deposit in the name of the deceased and transfer of the house which too was alleged to be in the name of the deceased. Rajnish (PW10) stated that Pran Nath (PW2) was manhandled by Ishwar Dass respondent in his presence and that deceased had also been beaten up by respondent Pano Devi on 24-7- 1991 when he went to the residence of the respondents accompanied by Chuhru Ram (PW3). A combined reading of the testimony of Pran Nath (PW2) and Rajnish (PW10) shows that both the witnesses have lied. Pran Nath (PW2) has no-where stated that he was manhandled. His statement that a sum of rupees 15,000/- and the house which allegedly stood in the name of the deceased were demanded is not corroborated by Rajnish (PW10). Statement of Pran Nath (PW2) to the aforesaid effect is not corroborated even by the earliest version, which he gave to the Police vide statement Exhibit-PC, under Section 154 Cr. P.C. The two witnesses thus contradict each other in material particulars. Not only this, Pran Nath (PW2) nowhere says that Rajnish (PW10) was also there at the house of the respondents on 24-7-1991 when he went there. Similarly, Chuhru Ram (PW3) also does not speak of the presence of Rajnish (PW10). Statement regarding the aforesaid demand for money and the house is further falsified by the statement of Pran Nath (PW2) himself to the effect that the deceased did not have any money in fixed deposit or any house in her name. If it is so, the 5 question of the respondents making demand for the money in fixed deposit and the house in the name of the deceased could not arise. In view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. March 11, 2008. (bm) 6