IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 67/1998 Reserved on: 12.3.2010 Decided on: 19.4. 2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Darshnu Ram. …Respondent. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. O.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.R. Kashyap, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Per Rajiv Sharma, J. A challenge has been laid by the State to the judgment dated 18.8.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby respondent has been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that deceased Veena Devi was married to respondent 14 years back. She consumed some poisonous substance on 21.8.1995. Father of the respondent and villagers went to bring the doctor. However, she died on 21.8.1995. Parents of the deceased were informed. Police reached the spot. Statement of the mother of deceased 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . No. 2 PW-1 Biasa Devi was recorded on 22.8.1995, under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-6/A was registered. Inquest was also conducted on the dead body. It was sent for post-mortem. Post mortem was conducted by PW-10 Dr. Subhash Jariyal. Viscera etc. were sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation and receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner, challan was prepared and filed in the court, after completing all the codal formalities provided under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. PW-1 Biasa Devi, PW-2 Garibu Ram, PW-3 Kamla Devi and PW-4 Thakur Dass are material witnesses. According to these witnesses, Veena Devi used to be beaten up by the respondent. Reason given by these witnesses for giving beatings by the respondent to Veena Devi was that he suspected her fidelity. Respondent was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He admitted his marriage with Veena Devi. According to him, he had gone to cut the grass in the fields and his wife and children were in the house. When he returned, he was told by his daughter that her mother was seriously ill. He found that deceased was vomitting. His father alongwith villagers went to bring the doctor. He took his wife inside the room. By the time his father came back, Veena Devi had died. He has denied that he maltreated his wife. Learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent. 3 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent. Mr. O.P. Sharma has supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Marriage between respondent and Veena Devi deceased was solemnized 14 years back before the incident. She consumed some poisonous substance, which according to PW-10 Dr. Subhash Jariyal was Aluminium Phosphide. She died on 21.8.1995 itself. Statement of the mother of the deceased was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 22.8.1995. PW-1 Biasa Devi is the mother of the deceased. She has admitted that respondent used to provide all the necessities of life to her daughter. She never lodged any report either with the Police or with the Panchayat about the beatings given by the respondent to Veena Devi (deceased). She has also admitted that respondent informed them about the ailment of Veena Devi. PW-2 Garibu Ram is the father of the deceased. He has admitted that he and his wife used to visit the house of the deceased regularly 7-8 times in a month. He has also deposed that no report was ever lodged with the police or Panchayat about the beatings given by the respondent to Veena Devi. He has also admitted that respondent was providing all the necessities of life 4 to Veena Devi (deceased). PW-3 Kamla Devi is aunt of the deceased. She has also admitted that parents of the deceased used to visit her house 2-3 times in a month. She has also deposed that Veena Devi was short-tempered lady. PW-4 Thakur Dass is the uncle of the deceased. He has deposed that he also visited the house of deceased 3-4 times during 15 years. Veena Devi never told him that she was being maltreated by the respondent. PW-10 is Dr. Subhash Jariyal. According to him, cause of death of deceased was result of shock resulting from the effects of aluminium phosphide. According to him, stomach, small intestine, large intestine, lever, spleen and kidney were normal. The opinion given by PW-10 Dr. Subhash Jariyal is contrary to the principles laid down in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology Twenty Second Edition (pp 197). As per Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence (supra), the stomach was supposed to be corrugated, loosened or hardened and was supposed to be stained red or velvety. The intestines get inflamed after the consumption of Aluminium Phosphide Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, interference with the judgment of the trial court, is not warranted by us. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents/accused stand discharged. (Surjit Singh), J (Rajiv Sharma), J 19.4..2010 *awasthi*