IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 190 of 1997 Date of decision: 16.08.2010 ____________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Ram Pal & others .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate, vice counsel. R.B. Misra, J (Oral). The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 09.01.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1995, acquitting the alleged accused under Sections 498-A, 306 & 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in reference to FIR No. 174 of 1994. 2. Prosecution case in brief was that deceased Kamla Devi was married to Ram Pal in the year 1988. For couple of years their marital relation was normal. However, it was alleged that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -: 2 :- initially a demand of bicycle was made, which was fulfilled by the parents of the deceased, thereafter, deceased was time and again beaten up and complaints were made to the parents of the deceased, but the matter was compromised. Earlier Rs.200/- per month was paid to the deceased Kamla Devi as maintenance by Ram Pal, thereafter, a case was filed and Rs. 300/- was granted as maintenance. However, on the pretext of compromise, she started living with her husband, where she consumed aluminium phosphide and succumbed to the poison. All the accused respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. PW-3 Dr. Anil Cheetu, District Hospital, Una, had conducted the post-mortem examination and has observed as follows: “A dead body of female adult, lying on the post mortem table wearing kameez, Salwar Terricot, Printed with read white flowers, yellow coloured nose ring left side, with read stone studded in the middle, black coloured Paranda 5’-1½” length. The eyes were partially closed. Cyanosis of nails, lip were present. Post Mortem lividity was present on her back, 3”x4”bluish read bruise on right side of abdomen and another bruise in a circumference of 2”. Both bruises were at a distance of 2”, bluish read bruise back of left knee joint backside. On dissection these injuries were ante- mortem in nature and blood was found in soft tissue signifying ante mortem nature of injuries. All other organs were normal. Pungent smell was coming from thick liquid digested food material -: 3 :- and it was preserved.’ Viscera was preserved for sending it to the Chemical Examiner for analysis and opinion regarding the death of the deceased was kept pending and it was to be given after the receipt of the report of C.E. The viscera was preserved in four bottles which were sealed and was handed over to police for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. The clothes and other articles of the deceased alongwith inquest report were handed over to the police. Post Mortem examination report is Ext. PE. “ 4. As pointed by PW-3, the death of the deceased was on account of consumption of aluminium phosphide. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, whereas, on behalf of the defence, three defence witnesses were presented. 5. We have scrutinised the prosecution witnesses and the material on record and we find that PW-1 Kashmir Singh, father and PW-2 Pritam Kaur, mother of the deceased in their endeavour to support the prosecution case, have tried to state that the deceased was not treated properly for lack of giving inadequate dowry. However, both these prosecution witnesses, i.e., father and mother of the deceased alongwith other prosecution witnesses have not stated that at any point of time any specific demand of dowry was made, which was not fulfilled. The specific instance of beating was not reported to Pardhan or any authority or even to police. About one month prior to the death (on 24.03.1994) Kamla -: 4 :- Devi, the deceased, was examined by DW-3 Dr. Mrs. Sita Ahuja, Medical officer, Mental Hospital and as a follow up case she was again examined on 02.04.1994 and following observations were made: “She looses temper, gets abusive, violent, hits family members, keeps sitting, lack of interest in work and surroundings, neglects personal hygene, sleep reduced, at times says Jee Karta Hai Mar Jawan. Mental status Examination was done and I observed as follows:- Restlessness, verbal violence present, patient was communicative, attention aroused but not sustained adequately, mood blunted or inappropriate, Paranoid ideas were present, reasoning and judgment impaired, intelligence and general knowledge was average, Insight lacking.” 6. The observations of the doctor are without any ambiguity that the mental condition of the victim/deceased was not normal. Though, some instances of beatings were noticed by the prosecution witnesses and during that period the relations of Kamla Devi with her husband were not very cordial. The prosecution could not specify and indicate the specific dowry demand and beatings given to the victim/deceased. The maltreatment and unusual behaviour between husband and wife cannot be an essential ingredient for fulfilling the requirement of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In the present case, the victim / deceased was undisputedly suffering from mental unsoundness. In these -: 5 :- circumstances, it becomes doubtful that by the act or conduct or by maltreatment or affliction on the part of the accused- respondents, a situation has been created and the victim/deceased was forced to commit suicide. 8. In our considered view the mental condition of the victim/deceased could be a vital cause of her committing suicide and on the basis of prosecution witnesses and material on record, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 9. On analysis of the prosecution witness and material on record and having considered the apparent contradictions and improbabilities, we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-respondents. There is no scope of interference in the judgment of the trial court and appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 16th August, 2010 (virender)