IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.: 402 of 1996. Decided on: 26.04.2010. __________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. … Appellant. Versus Udham Singh and others. …Accused/Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal by the State, is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.1995, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No.29-G/VII of 1994 whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. 2. The undisputed facts are that accused Tilak Raj was married to Smt. Sulekha, daughter of Man Singh (PW-2). This marriage took place some time in the year 1989. Sulekha died due to aluminium phosphate poisoning on 17.8.1994. On the next day, i.e. 18.8.1994 report Ex.P-B was lodged by PW-2, Man Singh with Police Station, Jawalamukhi wherein he alleged that his daughter had committed 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - suicide due to maltreatment and harassment meted out to her by the accused persons. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. Ex.P-B/1 was lodged. Investigation was done and the body of deceased was subjected to postmortem by PW-1, Dr. Gayatri Mahajan. After investigation the accused were challaned with having committed the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the accused were acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 3. PW.2 Man Singh is the father of deceased and PW-3, Kesari Devi is her mother. As per these witnesses, the deceased was treated well by her husband and other accused for the first four years of marriage and it was just one year before her death that the accused started harassing and ill-treating her. No other specific allegation is made against the accused. However, both these witnesses stated that about one week before her death, the deceased had come to her parental house and complained that her in-laws are demanding that she (the deceased) should part with her ornaments and other dowry articles which they want to give in dowry to her sister-in-law, i.e. her husband’s sister and daughter of accused No.1 and 3. This is the only specific allegation made against the accused. Even with regard to this allegation, it has not been specifically stated as to which of the accused made this demand from the deceased. Assuming that the demand was made by all the accused persons, this demand cannot be considered to be cruelty as envisaged under Section 498-A I.P.C. 4. We do not approve of the practice of a daughter-in-law being asked to part with her ornaments so that they can form part of the dowry of her sister-in-law. However, it cannot be denied that such a practice exists in this part of the country. Though a daughter-in-law may - 3 - be expected to part with her ornaments, she cannot be actually forced to do so. In fact, even as per the averments made in the complaint, the only allegation is that the deceased was being asked to give her ornaments. There is no allegation that she was threatened that in case she does not give her ornaments, she would be dealt with harshly. 5. The other allegation levelled during the recording of statement in Court is that since the deceased could not bear a child, she was ill-treated and thus committed suicide. In fact, such an allegation was not leveled when the original complaint Ex.PB was registered. Even otherwise, there is no evidence that the deceased was harassed on account of this fact except the bald allegation made for the first time in the Court. 6. PW-4, Nikku Ram and PW-5 Brahm Kumari have also made a similar allegation that the deceased was harassed and asked to part with her ornaments. It would be pertinent to mention that both these witnesses stated that they were present when the investigation took place on 18.8.1994 and they have made statements to the police on 18.8.1994. However, according to PW-12, Sub Inspector Jagdish Chand, their statements for the first time were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 27.8.1994. There is no explanation for the delay in recording the statements of these witnesses, which also makes their testimonies doubtful. It will also be pertinent to mention that PW-1, Dr. Gayatri Mahajan has not ruled out the possibility of the poisoning being accidental in nature. 7. In view of the above stated facts, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, the present - 4 - appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused- respondents stand discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 26, 2010. (sck).