1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 455 OF 2007. Reserved on : 8-7-2008. Date of Decision: 22 -7-2007. ____________________________________________________________ Pardeep Kumar Sharma and others. Appellants Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellants: : Sh. Jagdish Vats Advocate. For respondent : Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. Appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Solan vide its judgment in case No. 6 FTN/7 of 2007 decided on 23-11-2007 under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the appellant was sentenced to under-go rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of rupees 6000/- under Section 306, I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, to further under-go rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and under Section 498-A, I.P.C. to under-go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of rupees 2000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 Factual matrix which gives rise to the instant appeal is that accused-appellant Pardeep Kumar Sharma was married to Anjana (deceased) daughter of PW3 Tirath Ram in the month of November, 2005. Within five months of her marriage, Anjana committed suicide on 26.2.2006 by self-immolation. The appellants were put on trial on the allegations that after about one month of her marriage, when Anjana had visited the house of her parents, she informed her father PW3 Tirath Ram and also her brother PW1 Rajiv Kumar that the appellants had raised a demand of dowry and she was being harassed and treated with cruelty in the matrimonial house. Whenever she visited her parents, she informed them about the harassment and cruelty meted out to her. PW1 Rajiv Kumar is a driver in the truck. On 25-2-2006 PW1 Rajiv Kumar returned from Delhi and reached Baddi at 3.00 A.M. When he was sleeping in the truck, at about 8/9.00 a.m, he received a call on his mobile from his sister Anjaja. She was weeping. She informed him that she was given beatings by the appellants and disconnected the phone. Immediately thereafter, Rajiv Kumar made a telephonic call on the landline of the appellants which was attended by appellant Pushpa, the mother-in- law of the deceased. Rajiv Kumar requested her that he would like to talk to his sister Anjana, in reply Pushpa told that there was no such lady in the house and disconnected the phone. After about half an hour, his uncle PW3 Devender Nath informed him on his mobile that Anjana had been sat on fire by her in-laws and she was admitted in the hospital at Nalagarh. He immediately rushed to the Hospital. The deceased was taken in a burnt condition by her husband and 2/3 persons to the hospital at about 9.45 a.m. The Doctor informed the Police. 3 PW13 Inspector Kamal Kishore along with PW13 A.S.I. Rattan Chand and other police officials visited the Community Health Centre, Nalagarh and moved an application for recording her statement but she was not found fit to make the statement. Thereafter, she was referred to PGI Chandigarh. PW1 Rajiv Kumar made the statement Exhibit PW1/A informing about all the details and also having received the telephone of the deceased on his mobile. On the basis of his statement F.I.R. Exhibit PW10/A was registered on the same day under Section 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A.S.I. Rattan Chand (PW15) visited the spot of occurrence in village Kirpalpur and took the photographs Exhibit PW15/A1 to PW15/A10. The site plan Exhibit PW15/A was prepared. From the bed-room of the deceased, one chappal pair (Ext. P7), broken bangles (Ext. P9), half burnt bed sheet (Ext. P8) and one match box (Ext. P10) were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PW2/A in the presence of Pw Rajinder Parshad and Gurdip Singh witnesses. A plastic bottle (Ext. P5) which contained few drops of kerosene oil was also seized from the spot. There was a piece of English news paper (Ext. P2) which was in the drawer of the dressing table containing the suicidal note written with Exhibit-P3 eye-brow pencil which was also taken into possession by the Police vide memo Exhibit PW2/C. On 26.2.2006, PW15 Rattan Chand A.S.I. proceeded to Chandigarh and he came to know that Anjana had died on the previous day. On his request, post mortem was conducted in General Hospital Sector 16 Chandigarh. He obtained the post mortem report Exhibit PW15/D. He also took the photographs of the 4 dead body. The dead body was handed over to Shri Devender Nath (PW5) the uncle of the deceased. The appellants were arrested. Thereafter, PW16 Dy. S.P. Sandeep Dhawal took over the further investigation of the case and on 3.3.2006, and took into possession the admitting writing, i.e, an exercise note book produced by PW1 Rajiv Kumar brother of the deceased pertaining to the deceased vide memo Exhibit PW1/B). The said exercise book (P1) was maintained by the deceased when she was under- going training of tailoring at Rajpura. According to Rajiv Kumar, she was acquainted with the writings of the deceased and the pages of Exhibit-P1 A1 to A29 and from A30 to A35 were in the hand of Anjana deceased. During the investigation, the police also took into possession the details of telephone number 220062 of accused- appellant Pardeep Kumar from J.T.O. B.S.N.L. Nalagarh. These details are Exhibit PW9/A1 and PW9/A2. The details of mobile number 98164-33776 pertaining to PW1 Rajiv Kumar were also taken into possession from the said J.T.O showing that at the relevant time, as alleged by PW1 Rajiv Kumar, he was contacted by the deceased telephonically and in response to that, he had also spoken to the appellant Pushpa Devi as aforesaid. Photographs Exhibit PW8/A along with the negatives pertaining to the marriage were also taken into possession. Admitted writings on Exhibit-P1 along with the suicidal note Exhibit P2 were sent for forensic examination by an expert. The writings on suicidal note tallied with the admitted writing as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory Exhibit PW16/B. After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court against the appellants for their trial. 5 Appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences aforesaid. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the appellants were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellants alleged their false implication in the case and according to them, the deceased could not adjust in their family because prior to the marriage, she was working in a factory and leading a free and independent life. Therefore, after marriage, she developed depression and later committed suicide without any cause. The appellants were called upon to enter into their defense but they did not lead any defense evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid which has been assailed in this appeal on law and facts. Shri Jagdish Vats, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the alleged suicidal note could not be proved in the hands of the deceased as writing on exercise book Exhbit-P1 is alleged to have been signed by one Maya Devi and that only the interested relation witnesses were examined and their statements are self-contradictory and do not inspire confidence. He further submitted that even PW1 has admitted in his statement that appellant Renu had cordial relations with the deceased and even the deceased had accompanied her to Ambala to attend the marriage of her brother. No complaint regarding any maltreatment or torture was ever made by the deceased in the village where she was married and even the father and brother of the deceased had also not made any complaint to the Pradhan of the Panchayat. 6 Therefore, the story of cruelty, harassment and maltreatment and also abetting her to commit suicide is quite doubtful. Contra, Shri J.S. Guleria, Law Officer while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has referred to the F.I.R., the statements of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the suicidal note and submitted that there is overwhelming evidence against the appellants adduced on record and the learned trial Court was legally justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants. I have gone my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have re-evaluated the evidence on record in all meticulous details. The prosecution has put reliance on the oral evidence led on record and the suicidal note Exhibit P2. First, I shall take up the oral evidence and examine it with extra caution, as they being the relation witnesses. To lend support to the version of PW1 Rajiv Kumar, prosecution has relied upon the computer generated details Exhibit PW9/A & PW9/B of his mobile number and land line of the appellants which have been proved by PW9 Rakesh Chand JTO, who was handling the exchange computers. The perusal of these details reveals that from the telephone number of the appellants, there was a call on the cell phone of PW1 Rajiv Kumar at 8.48 a.m. on 25.2.2006 and at 8.53, he (PW1) called the number of the appellants. PW16 Sandeep Dhawal, has testified on oath that these telephone numbers belong to the parties as aforesaid. Thus, above proved facts lend corroboration to the version of PW1 Rajiv Kumar the brother of the deceased that in the morning on the same day, Angina deceased had contacted him on telephone and while 7 weeping made the complaint of maltreatment and harassment against the appellants and immediately disconnected the telephone and also that when he again rang up on the telephone number in the house of the appellants, it was attended by appellant Pushpa, mother in law of the deceased and she told him that there was no lady by the name of Anjana in their house and disconnected the telephone. The duration of the call in the above details substantiate this fact. Further his earliest disclosure to the police in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C on the same day at 10.30 a.m. lends strength to his version. PW1 Rajiv Kumar testified the version in clear and unambiguous words in the Court. In cross-examination, he has frankly admitted that when he had visited the matrimonial house of Anjana, she had never complained to him about the alleged maltreatment. But he further qualified it and stated that during the stay of Anjana in his parent’s house, he met her twice and she told on her every visit that the appellants were maltreating her and demanded dowry. However, he also admitted that the relations of the deceased with appellant Renu were cordial. Even the deceased had gone to Ambala to attend the marriage of brother of appellant Renu in the month of February 2006, he was informed by the deceased about her visit to Ambala on telephone. It is denied by him that his sister had gone in depression in the matrimonial home as she could not adjust in that atmosphere and committed suicide without any reason. PW3 Tirath Ram, the father of the deceased also lends corroboration to his statement. According to him, deceased had visited his house 2/3 times along with her husband after her marriage. She had stayed there for about 6/7 days in his house 8 and told that the appellants had been demanding rupees three lacs for purchase of land and Maruti car in dowry. He informed his daughter that he was not in a position to fulfill the demand, however, he would try to meet this demand. In cross-examination also he reiterated that during her stay for 7/8 days, deceased told him only once about the maltreatment and beatings. He also deposed that on the complaint of Anjana deceased, he called Manoj,elder brother of Pradeep. He was a teacher working at a far off place from his village. In turn, he assured him not to get worried. PW3 in his statement specifically stated that on 16.2.2006, Anjaja deceased had also informed him telephonically that the accused were harassing her on demand of dowry as aforesaid. He further stated that PW6 Ashok, cousin of the deceased had gone only once to bring Anjana from her matrimonial house and rest of her visits were with her appellant-husband. He further stated that prior the marriage, Anjana was working in a factory and was getting rupees 2200/2300 per month. He also stated that Anjana was having a mobile phone and she had been talking to her brothers and sisters. He denied that Anjana had gone in depression in her matrimonial house and committed suicide without any reasonable cause. PW4 Rohni is elder sister of the deceased. She also made the same statement as made by PW1 and PW3 above. She has categorically stated even in her cross-examination that deceased had complained to her parents about the harassment and demand of dowry. PW5 is Devinder Nath the uncle of the deceased. He has slightly exaggerated his version that the deceased had told him on his visit to the hospital that she was burnt by the appellants. This 9 version was contrary to PW1 and PW3 and also the Doctor who had examined her first. According to Doctor, she was brought in semi-conscious condition and was having 90 to 95% of burns on her body and was not fit to make the statement. Therefore, this portion of his statement is not to be believable. However, regarding demand of dowry and cruelty, his version is consistent to the narration of other witnesses of this fact. PW6 Ashok Kumar who had gone to call the deceased once in the month of January, 2006 has also stated that Anjana had complained him that the appellants used to taunt her and raised the illegal demand dowry. She was also given beatings in the matrimonial house on patty matters. He drove her to the parental house on his motor cycle and on 25.2.2006, he came to know that she had died of burn injuries. In his cross-examination, he denied that Anjana did not say anything to him. PW11 Dr. M.R. Verma had examined her at 9.45 a.m. on 25.2.2006 and found 90 to 95% burns on her body as aforesaid. Injuries were because of burning with kerosene oil. He issued the MLC Exhibit pW11/A. PW17 Dr. Usha Bansal had performed the post mortem and forensic science reports confirms that the burning was due to the pouring of kerosene oil. This fact of her committing suicide by her as aforesaid is not disputed. The other evidence by which the appellants are sought to be connected is the suicidal note Exhibit P2 written in Hindi on a page of English Daily newspaper that “MERI MAUT KA HAKDAR PATI PARDIP HAI AUR SAS HAI. Renu Renu”. PW15 A.S.I. Rattan Chand on 25.2.2006 after visiting the Hospital, went to the house of the appellants and took into possession this suicidal note vide Memo Exhibit PW2/C which was 10 found in one of the drawers of the dressing table in the presence of Rajinder Parshad (PW2). PW2 Rajinder Parshad had also stated that eye lid pen Exhibit P3 was also taken from the another drawer in his presence and in the presence of Gurdit Singh. PW1 Rajiv Kumar had handed over the exercise note book Exhibit P1 to PW16 Dy. S.P. Sandeep Dhawal vide memo Exhibit PW2/C. It is clearly stated by Rajiv Kumar that before the marriage, the deceased was under-going training for stitching/tailoring at Rajpura and the note book Exhibit-P1 pertained to the deceased which was used by her at that time and he has stated that the pages A1 to A29 and A30 to A35 were in her hand. He was well acquainted with her writing. The writing in Exhibit P1 which were admitted writings were sent for its comparison with the alleged suicidal note to the Forensic Science Laboratory where it was examined by PW18 Dr. Visheshwar Sharma. On having examined the eye brow pencil Exhibit P3 seized from the drawer of dressing table of the house of the appellants by the Police and admitted writings in the exercise note book Exhibit P1 found the writing Q1 on Exhibit P2 with Ext. P3 and on examining it and on comparison, was found to have been written by the same person as per report Exhibit PW18/B (Mark-Z). The brother of the deceased PW1 Rajiv Kumar could not tell whether the suicidal note was in the hand of the deceased. The Forensic science report did not spell out the reasons how he came to the conclusion that it was written by the same person who had written the admitted writings of the note book. Otherwise also, it lacks corroboration, in the light of the above facts, the alleged suicidal note is of no help to the respondent, nor does it connect appellant Renu. 11 However, on the close scrutiny of the oral evidence, it stands proved on record that deceased Anjana had committed suicide by burning herself within five months from her marriage. Though the suicidal note Exhibit P2 is not connected with the handwriting of the deceased and except report Exhibit PW1/B the detailed reasons are not on record nor it is stated by the expert how he came to the above conclusion. Otherwise also Ext. P2 aforesaid repeats the name of Renu twice at its end with no meaning which creates a doubt whether she was also responsible for the death of Anjana vis-à-vis the statement of PW1 Rajiv Kumar who has stated that the deceased was having cordial relations with Renu appellant and the deceased had also gone to Ambala to attend the marriage of her brother about a week ago of her death. Renu herself was residing in the house with her mother-in-law and brother-in-law Pardeep Kumar and her husband. Manoj Kumar was working in the Education Department far away from his paternal house in the Hills. In these circumstances substantial doubt arises on the role of appellant Renu for the offences charged. Therefore, she deserves to be acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubt. As far as other appellants are concerned, even if suicidal note is excluded from its consideration, there is overwhelming evidence against them regarding the cruelty and harassment meted out to the deceased and also creating circumstances for Anjana to commit suicide by causing, harassment and demand of money as alleged, just before her death, within the meaning of Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code which are quite distinct offences. There was also no reason for the mother-in-law of the deceased named Pushpa to disconnect the telephone when PW1 Rajiv Kumar the brother of the deceased had asked about his sister 12 Anjana and expressed his intention to talk to her on 25.2.2006, by saying that no such person was residing there. Her this conduct also an additional link to the circumstances. This fact his having telephoned from his (PW1) mobile number stands linked from the details of the computerized calls obtained from the J.T.O. The harassment meted out to the deceased has been proved to be with a view to coercing her to meet the unlawful demand of money which she ultimately failed to fulfill. Thus, the statement of PW1 Rajiv Kumar, cannot be doubted at all. In the light of the above discussion, I find that though the prosecution has examined the relation witnesses but on its close scrutiny, I find their statements worth inspiring confidence as far as the commission of crime by appellant Pardeep Kumar and Pushpa Devi for the offences charged against them is concerned. The deceased was a newly married girl. There was no cause for her causing depression within five months of her marriage in her matrimonial house. The circumstances indicate that every thing was not going well with her. Further in such a short span of time, she could not have developed any acquaintance and reposed confidence on any other person in the vicinity in the matrimonial village to complain against her husband or the mother-in-law. The appellants Pardeep Kumar and Pushapa have proved to have abetted the commission of suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and they had subjected her to cruelty. Therefore, presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act can also be pressed into service to which the said appellants could not be rebut by any cogent evidence or explanation. In the totality of circumstances, for reasons aforesaid, I have found the judgment of conviction passed learned trial Court qua 13 appellants Pardeep Kumar husband and Pushpa, mother-in-law respectively of the deceased to be in accordance with law. As far as sentence part is concerned, while maintaining the substantive sentences of imprisonment and fine under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34, I.P.C., I modify the sentence to the extent that in default of payment of fine by each of the appellants, on each count, they shall under-go simple imprisonment for a period of two months instead of rigorous imprisonment. However, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court qua Renu appellant is hereby set-aside and she stands acquitted by giving her benefit of doubt. She be set at liberty forth-with, if not required in any other case. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed to the above extent. (Surinder Singh) Judge. July 22 , 2008. (bm)