1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 749 of 2002 Decided on: October, 14, 2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. VERSUS Joginder Singh & anr ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Sr. Adld. AG For the respondents: Mr. Nareshwar Chandel, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, Judge: The State challenges the acquittal of the respondents who were charged for offences under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that (PW-15) Yashwant Singh, brother of the deceased, lodged FIR Ext PW-14/A on 30th May, 1994, on the allegations that respondent No.1-accused was a drunkard/drugaddict and a gambler and used to harass the deceased, torment Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? 2 her constantly, which ultimately forced her to take the extreme step of ending her life by consuming poison. She was taken to the hospital immediately, where she was treated by (PW-13) Dr. J. Goswami, who states in evidence that on 30.5.1994 at around 10 PM, he examined the deceased Rajesh Kumari, aged about 27 years. She herself narrated the history of the incident that she had taken two tablets of insecticide used to preserve grains. He makes the following observations in his statement PW-13/A as follows: “She was fully conscious, pulse was low volume. Blood pressure was 70/50. In casualty, she was given stomach wash, injection Decardon 8 Mg plus injection Atropine 6 amps were injected immediately and she was admitted I Female Medical Ward. In the ward following treatment was advised: (i) I.V fluids (ii) Lasix injections (iii) Gelusil MPS Gel AND (iv) Decardron Injection. P,T.R, BP and I/O charge were to be recorded. Thereafter the patient was referred to PGI on 31.5.1994 t 7.00 AM.” 3. He states that she was treated in the hospital on that day and on the next morning, i.e. 31.5.1994, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The prosecution has proved 3 on record that when she was taken to PGI, she died and her postmortem was conducted at General hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh report Ext PX. The final opinion of the death is Ext PW-14/B of Central Forensic Science Laboratory. We find from the report Ext PW-14/B that the Forensic examination reveal that the deceased had consumed aluminium phosphide which was detected in the stomach contents, liver, spleen and kidney and small intestine contents of the deceased. This in a nut shell is the case of the prosecution. We note that the factum of death stands established on the record. We also note that the deceased was in a conscious and fit state of mind at the time when she was treated at Bilaspur on 30.5.1994. But we are very surprised about the fact that no effort was made by the doctor or anybody else to inform the police on that day that a case of poisoning has been admitted in the hospital. We also find that the deceased was working as a female health worker. 4. (PW-4) Krishani Devi, who is mother of the deceased, states in her examination-in-chief that the deceased was married to the accused No.1 about 7 ½ years prior to her death. After marriage, some times, there were some quarrel between the accused and the 4 deceased, but otherwise, they were living happily. She states Joginder Singh accused wanted to marry again and, therefore, was compelling the deceased to serve the accused throughout night by massaging his legs. But she was declared hostile. She was confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C to impeach her credibility, but we do not find anything in her cross- examination which would disprove the facts stated by her in her examination-in-chief. 5. (PW-5) Sunita Devi was also produced by the prosecution to prove the factum of constant maltreatment-cruelty practiced upon the deceased. But she was declared hostile. Similarly, (PW-8) Mathura Das, Pradhan Gram Pancayat, Rajpura was produced in evidence but was declared hostile. The same was with fate of (PW12) Ranbir Singh and (PW-15) Yashwant Singh, brother of the deceased. All these witnesses were cross examined but did not state anything in the cross examination, which supports the case of the prosecution. 6. The genesis of the case of the prosecution is that accused/respondent No.1 was a gambler, drunkard and a drug addict who used to harass and torment the deceased constantly and due to this behaviour, she had to take the extreme step of ending her life. But we find from 5 the evidence on record not even one witness support this allegations. There is nothing on the record over and above which lead to the conclusion that accused/respondent N.1 was, in fact, following this course of action regularly. 7. We also find from the record that there is not a single allegation made against respondent No.2. Krishani Devi (PW-4) stated in her cross examination in one line that accused was harassing the deceased but beyond that she is not able to state any incident or time or the nature of cruelty to which the deceased was being subjected to. 8. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the evidence on record is conclusive and points only to one conclusion and that it is the accused who are guilty of the offences. He submits that the very fact that the deceased has ended her life by consuming pesticides, is not a normal circumstance and this itself is sufficient to establish that she ended her life because of the circumstances which were not within her control, but forced on her by the accused. We are unable to accept this submission in the absence of any substantive evidence on record which establishes the nature of cruelty as practized on her. We also find it very 6 strange that the doctor never informed the police nor made any attempt to record the statement of the deceased when she was fully conscious at the time when she was admitted in the hospital for treatment on 30.5.1994. 9. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. 10. Bail bonds, furnished are discharged. ( R.B.Misra ), J. 14th October, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud ),J. (sl)