Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.44 of 2004. Dated of Decision: August 16, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chaman Lal …… Appellant. Versus State of H.P. ……. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes.. For the Appellant : Mr. M.S. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. J.S. Rana, Asstt. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J, (oral. : Appellant Chaman Lal was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 months, for allegedly committing the offence of cruelty against his wife. 2. As a matter of fact, the appellant and his parents Relu Ram and Rukki Devi were tried jointly for the - 2 - offences punishable under Sections 306 and 408-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Relu Ram and Rukki Devi were acquitted, whereas, appellant Chaman Lal was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. Smt. Kunta Devi alias Durga Devi, sister of PW1 Khem Chand was married to the appellant in December 1991. Initially, for a period of 1½ years after the marriage, said Kunta Devi was kept nicely in her matrimonial home, but thereafter it is alleged that the appellant used to give beatings to her and her in-laws harassed her on the ground that she was unable to bear a child. It is alleged that PW1 Khem Chand went to the house of the appellant and enquired about the incident. The appellant confessed having given beatings to her, whereas, his parents assured him (PW1) that they would not harass her in future, but after about 2 ½ years, deceased went to her parental house and informed her parents that the appellant had been still resorting to giving beatings to her. Next day, her father-in-law Relu Ram visited also them. He informed that there was some quarrel inter se the husband and wife. It is also in the prosecution case that her mother-in-law Smt. Rukki Devi used to blame her for - 3 - “Jaddu-Tona”, consequently local Panchayat was convened in the house of her in-laws. Even at that time, the appellant Chaman Lal confessed having given beatings to her and assured before the Panchayat that he would keep her nicely in future. All this happened during the years 1993-94. 4. On 29th September, 1998, Kunta Devi @ Durga Devi committed suicide by setting herself on fire outside in the open field and finished herself. Relu Ram, her father- in-law reported the matter to the police on the same day around 7 p.m. to this effect report in the daily diary Ex.PM was recorded in the Police Station. On this police proceeded to the spot. A telephonic message was received by the brother of deceased PW1 Khem Chand about her death. He also visited the house of his brother- in-law. 5. On the next day, i.e. on 30th September, 1998 at about 9.10 a.m., he gave the statement Ex.PA under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Khem Chand to the police on the basis of which, FIR was lodged against the appellant and his parents. Police had already prepared the inquest papers Ex.PB. - 4 - 6. The autopsy of the dead body was got done and the postmortem report is Ex.PE. Viscera was preserved and sent for forensic examination. The final opinion was accorded and as per the doctor, deceased had died due to shock due to burn injuries. The police had prepared the site plan of the place of incident and also took photographs. 7. After recording the statements of the witnesses and on completing the challan, it was presented in the Court for the trial of the appellant and his parents. 8. The appellant and his parents were accordingly charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They abjured the guilt and claimed trial. 9. To prove its case, prosecution examined her brother PW1 Khem Chand and cousins, PW2 Bhagat Ram, PW3 Dev Raj, PW4 Kaushalya Devi w/o PW1 Khem Chand, besides examining the Pradhans and ward members of the respective Gram Panchayats, the doctor who performed the autopsy on the dead body. 10. The appellant and his parents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal - 5 - Procedure. They denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon each of them. The appellant Chaman Lal and his father alleged their false implication in the case. Rukki Devi stated that for the last about one week, prior to the occurrence, she was away in the house of her brother and was not at home however, all of them pleaded their innocence in this case and alleged false implication. 11. The trend of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses shows that the deceased was not used to work in the field. Whenever she was asked to render help to the other members of the family, she used to retaliate and express anguish. She was short-tempered and used to leave her matrimonial home without informing anyone and this factwas also revealed before the Local Panchayat with a view to make her understand. 12. Learned trial Court did not believe the evidence regarding offence under Section 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against his parents and also under Section 306 I.P.C. against the appellant, as such they were acquitted, however, the learned trial Court held that the offence under Section 498-A IPC was - 6 - proved against Chaman Lal as such he was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 13. Shri M.S. Guleria, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is nothing on record to conclude that the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is even made out against the appellant. According to him whatever evidence has been adduced by the prosecution on record is with respect to the incident, which happened way back in the year 1994 i.e. about 4 years back which was of a minor nature and was conciled. The other allegations made by PW1 Khem Chand and PW4 Kaushalya Devi are prejudicial, vague and wrong, not inspiring confidence, thus cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction. 14. Contra, Shri J.S. Rana, learned Assistant Advocate General, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and forcefully argued that the statement of PW1 Khem Chand and PW4 Kaushalya Devi are worth inspiring confidence, which is corroborated by other occular statements on record, therefore, no interference is called for. - 7 - 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully gone through the record and reappraised the evidence. 16. Admittedly, Kunta Devi deceased was married to the appellant in the month of December, 1991and she committed suicide by burning herself in the month of September, 1998. 17. Before adverting to the critical examination of the evidence on record, it would be useful to reproduce Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It reads as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty._ Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation._ For the purposes of this section “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or - 8 - (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 18. Of course, “cruelty” has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code but the above explanations added to the Section spells out the ingredients of the offence of “cruelty” which are cruelty and harassment. The elements of cruelty so far as clause (a) is concerned can be classified as follows: (i) any ‘willful’ misconduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide; or (ii) any ‘willful’ conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the woman; or (iii) any ‘willful’ act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman. 19. In order to constitute “cruelty” under clause (b), there has to be a harassment of the woman with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable - 9 - security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 20. In Smt. Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR 2000 SC 3559 the apex Court held that while considering the case of cruelty in the context to the provisions of Section 498-A IPC, the court must examine that allegations/accusations must be of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, in another case Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078, the Supreme Court held that “cruelty” has to be understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in Section 498-A I.P.C. and there should be a case of continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another. 21. Taking note of the above judgments amongst others Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam 2009 (2) S.L.J. (S.C.) 1036 = 2009(4) Criminal Court Cases 129 (S.C.) observed that “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A Indian Penal Code is to be established in the context of S. 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined /inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the - 10 - gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may also be termed as “cruelty”. 22. Against the aforesaid legal background, it has to be seen whether any evidence, which has appeared on the record can be used against the appellant, for entering upon the findings that the appellant had subjected to deceased Kunta Devi to cruelty, as contemplated in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. 23. PW1 Khem Chand is the real brother of the deceased. According to him, there was no complaint for 1 ½ years of marriage of his sister with the appellant, but thereafter, when his sister visited his house, she informed him that since she was unable to bear any child till date, the appellant gave beatings to her. His sister stayed in the house for night. Next day, her father-in-law Relu Ram - 11 - came there and on enquiry he informed that some quarrel might have taken place between appellant and the deceased, but he assured to give him a word of advice. Thereafter, he alongwith PW2 Bhagat Ram and PW3 Dev Raj accompanied his sister alongwith Relu Ram to her matrimonial house and enquired from the appellant the reasons for the harassment to his sister. It was then the appellant is stated to have confessed having been given beatings to her, but his father assured that it would never happen again. He further stated that after about 2 ½ years, again his sister visited him and informed that appellant and her in-laws had given beatings to her. She stayed there for the night. On the next day, Relu Ram visited their house. He enquired about the complaint made by Kunta Devi. Relu Ram told him that again there must be some dispute between the husband and wife. They decided to re-visit the marital house of deceased alongwith members of their Panchayat. He also stated that his deceased sister complained him that her mother-in-law was blaming her for practicing witchcraft, when the deceased gave a glass of milk which contained hair in it. When Panchayat was held and the enquiries were made from appellant - 12 - about the reasons for giving beatings to her, he is alleged to have confessed it, but assured to the Panchayat that in future he would keep the deceased properly and nicely and tendered apologies. He further alleged that all the accused persons including the appellant continuously gave beatings to his sister, without giving specific instance(s) and did not state what follow up action was taken by him. The above incidents relates back to the year 1994. 24. In his cross-examination, he expressed his ignorance that after about 3 years of his marriage, appellant remained at Pandoh, where he was serving, though he had been visiting his house only on Sundays. He also admitted that prior to the birth of daughter his sister had given birth to a deformed child, who did not survive. He further admitted that she was admitted in the hospital and was also got treated in the temple by the appellant as advised. He also stated that after about 5 years of her marriage, she gave birth to a daughter and that his sister as well as her in-laws used to attend all the functions in their house and his relatives. He also admitted that after about 4 years of her marriage, when his sister visited him, next day her father-in-law came there and informed that - 13 - his sister should not leave the house without informing anybody in the family and that one year prior to her death, she had visited his house alongwith her father-in- law and informed that he should visit him alongwith the President of their Gram Panchayats and other relations. When the Panchayat was convened, Relu Ram informed all the persons present there that if the deceased would feel aggrieved of any action of her husband, she should complain to him and if there would be any grievance she should complain to the local Panchayat/ members and further that he further told the members of the Panchayat that Smt. Kunta Devi is a short tempered lady and angers on petty matters. He also admitted that when the matter was being discussed in the Panchayat, his sister admitted that when she offered milk to her mother-in-law, there were some hair in the glass, but she could not explain as to how it came in it. According to him, there is a myth in the area that if the hair are given to drink with some substance, it results into witchcraft. He further admitted that the deceased gave birth to a son and the appellant had sent ‘Tel Dharuv’ etc. as per rituals to their house. After about 13 days there was ‘Gantrayara’ ceremony of their child. They were also invited. He was confronted with - 14 - his statement Ex.PA wherein importantly the harassment alleged to have been meted out to the deceased by the father-in-law was not found mentioned. He denied the suggestion that on the day of alleged occurrence, entire members of the family of the accused were cutting maize crop in their field. The grand-mother of the appellant, who was alive at that time asked the deceased to go to the field extend help to them. On this she became angry which resulted into said incident. 25. PW2 Bhagat Ram is a cousin of deceased. He alongwith PW3 Dev Raj is stated to have been accompanied PW1 Khem Chand to the house of the appellant. He gave another version that he had seen the injuries on the person of the deceased, but when confronted with his previous statement recorded by the police, it did not find mentioned therein. He admitted that Relu Ram had informed PW1 aforesaid to bring Pradhan and members of their Panchayat to their village and he would also call the Pradhan etc. of his Panchayat. He also informed that the deceased had been leaving the house without informing them. This fact is also admitted by PW3 Dev Raj and he stated that PW9 Jai - 15 - Singh Pradhan of the Panchayat of the parents of the deceased was also present. 26. Deceased was sister-in-law of PW4 Kaushalya devi, wife of PW1 Khem Chand. She also made similar statement as that of her husband PW-1 Khem Chand. She also stated that at the time of birth of the male child, she alongwith some other ladies visited the house of the deceased. On this occasion, deceased informed them that she could live peacefully only if accused persons without specifically naming them, allow her to live and after about two months, she committed suicide. 27. In her cross-examination, she admitted that in an agriculturist family, every member of the family works in the field. She denied that the deceased was not used to work in the field and was also not working. She also denied that when any member of the family asked her to do some agriculture work, she used to get angry. She further stated that the deceased did not disclose any reason for giving beatings to her at that time when she visited her. 28. PW5 Ranjeet Singh, Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Nichli Lot accompanied by ward member - 16 - Rikhi Ram visited the appellant, but according to him on that day, neither the appellant nor his father Relu Ram were present. Only Ruki Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased was there. After about 1 ½ months, again he was taken by PW1 Khem Chand alongwith Karam Singh, to the house of the accused to enquire about harassment being meted out to the deceased. On inquiry, the accused persons told them that when the deceased had served a glass of milk to her mother-in-law, it contained hair, but the deceased told them that she had given milk after filtering and she could not explain as to how hair appeared in milk and nothing more had happened, thus they returned to their villages. The incident is also of the year 1994. He admitted in cross-examination that he had taken initiative for settling the dispute. Khem Chand had also approached him for the said purpose and asked him to accompany to the house of the deceased. He further stated that he did not receive any complaint from the deceased or her family members about harassment being meted out to her. He had not even heard anything about it from any of the persons from her village. He also stated that apart from the said allegations of “Jaddu-Tona”, Khem Chand did not allege any maltreatment form the - 17 - side of the accused. He further admitted that in their area, there is a myth that if hair are given to somebody, it is witchcraft. 29. PW6 Tek Chand, President of Gram Panchayat Nichla Lot did not support the case of the prosecution, but he stated that the father-in-law of the deceased had told him that his daughter-in-law Kunta Devi had been leaving house without their permission so he called the members of the Panchayat and Presidents of both the Panchayats. He attended the said Panchayat and both the parties were advised to live in peace and Kunta Devi was told not leave her house without permission. There was absolutely no talk with her husband having given beatings to Kunta Devi. He also admitted that Relu Ram, father-in-law of the deceased had informed Panchayat that the deceased was short tempered and used to get angry on petty matters and further that he also complained that the deceased had thrown her ornaments on the way while coming from her parental house to her matrimonial house. 30. PW8 Roshan Lal Ward Member of the Panchayat also related back the incident to the year - 18 - 1991 having attended the Panchayat on askance of PW1 Khem Chand. He simply stated that the deceased had complained about giving slaps by her husband. On this, the appellant and her in-laws apologized before the Panchayat and assured to keep her properly. He further admitted that Relu Ram stated that before the Panchayat that deceased should not leave the house unnecessarily and if she had any complaint, she should inform to the Member or Pradhan of the Panchayat. 31. PW9 Jai Singh, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Sainj also made the similar statement and in cross-examination, he stated that after the year 1994, PW1 Khem Chand and other family members never made any complaint that his sister is being maltreated by the accused persons. He also corroborated the fact that Relu Ram stated before the Panchayat that his daughter-in- law has been leaving the house on petty matters which brought a bad name to the family and told that in case she has any grievance, she should tell it to the local member or to the Pradhan. Even the fact of giving beatings to her were denied and he further admitted that deceased was a short tempered lady and used to got annoyed on the petty matters. - 19 - 32. On having critically examined the entire prosecution evidence, I find that occasionally there has been some trivial dispute inter se the appellant and his wife, prior to the year 1994 when the Panchayat was convened. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that the deceased was a short tempered lady and used to get annoyed on the petty matters. In so many words, it stands proved that she was not in the habit of doing the agricultural work, whenever she was asked to do she felt offended. On the day of alleged incident, the grand mother-in-law of the deceased asked her to go to the field to help other family members, on which she got annoyed and thereafter, suddenly she finished her life by pouring kerosene oil and set herself on fire. 33. Therefore, in the totality of circumstances of the case, when the case of the prosecution was examined threadbare and in view of the statements discussed above, in my considered opinion, it is not a case which fell in the purview of cruelty as held by the apex Court in the cases cited above. There was no such willful misconduct, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide. - 20 - 34. After examining the allegations and accusations made by the prosecution witnesses, I also do not find circumstances to be of very grave nature and more so, these were alleged to have taken place about 4 years before her death. There is no evidence with respect to continuous state of affairs of torturing the deceased. Thus weighing the gravity/ seriousness of the allegations, there was no reason to drive the deceased to commit suicide in absence of cruelty, or in close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. The petty quarrels in the family cannot be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the incident which took place in the year 1994 stood resolved in the Panchayat, thereafter the