IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No. 286 of 1998. Decided on: 6.5.2010. ___________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Roop Ram and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Ms. Nidhi Chawla, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (Oral). State has appealed against the judgment, dated 2.4.1998, of acquittal of respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. 2. According to the prosecution, deceased Veena Devi was married to Som Dutt, a son of respondent, Geet Devi in the year 1985. Two children, one son aged about 8 years at the time of the incident and a daughter aged about 2 years at that time, were born out the wedlock. About 2 or 2 ½ years after the marriage, Veena Devi started complaining that her mother in law, respondent, Geeta Devi and her husband’s brother, respondent, Roop Ram and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 latter’s wife Asha Devi respondent used to harass and nag her. Whenever she visited her parents, she complained about the misconduct and misbehaviour of the respondents. She would complain that her children were not properly fed and were discriminated in the matter of providing food etc., vis-a-vis the children of respondent, Roop Ram. On 24.1.1995, she jumped into a village well along with her two children. All of them died. On being informed, a police party headed by CW-1, ASI Prem Chand, went to the village. By that time, father of the deceased Amar Nath (PW-2) had also reached the village. ASI Prem Chand recorded the statement of Amar Nath (PW-2). He also conducted inquest and prepared reports Ext. PH, Ext. PJ and Ext. PK. Dead bodies were sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. Post mortem was conducted by PW-1, Dr. Arvind Kumar. The Doctor gave the opinion that all the three died of drowning. 3. On the next day, PW-8, Sobha Ram, Dy.S.P. visited the spot. He made enquiries with the people and sent report Ext. PD on the basis of which, case under Section 306 IPC, was registered, vide FIR Ext. PE. During investigation, it was found that the three respondents were responsible for the extreme step taken by deceased Veena Devi. 4. Consequently, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted to the concerned Magistrate, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Sessions Court. Respondents were charged by the Sessions Court with an offence, under Section 306 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and were, therefore, put on trial. 3 5. Prosecution examined the parents of Veena Devi, namely PW-2 Amar Nath, the father and PW-5 Nirmla Devi, the mother. A lady living in the neighbourhood of the respondents, namely PW-3 Saroj Thakur was also examined. Two other ladies from the village of the respondents were also examined, but they did not support the prosecution story. 6. Undoubtedly, the parents and Saroj Thakur (PW-3) stated that the deceased used to complain that the respondents harassed her and her children and discriminated between her children and the children of Roop Ram in the matter of serving food to them, but this story appears to be an afterthought. Initially, when Amar Nath (PW-2), father of the deceased Veena Devi lodged report with CW-1, ASI Prem Chand, he did not complain of any torture or harassment by anybody. The fact is admitted by PW-2, Amar Nath himself as also CW-1, ASI Prem Chand. Statement of Amar Nath (PW-2) was recorded by Prem chand on 24.1.1995, per statement of Amar Nath and CW-1, Prem Chand. Prem Chand says that he had handed over the said statement along with other papers pertaining to the proceedings conducted by him to Dy. S.P., Sobha Ram (PW-8) on 25.1.1995. Sobha Ram also admitted that a file had been handed over to him by ASI Prem Chand. However, the statement made by Amar Nath to Prem Chand, which was there in that file, per statement of Prem Chand, has been with-held by the prosecution and therefore, prosecution is liable to an adverse inference for with-holding the earliest version of Amar Nath, which was supposed to be unembellished and uncoloured. 4 7. In view of the above stated position, we do not interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 6, 2010. (cr)