IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A. No. 64 of 1995 Date of Decision: 14.11.2008 ________________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant Versus Subhash Chand & others … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamsala, whereby he has acquitted the respondent-accused of having committed an offence punishable under sections 306/468-A IPC. It is not disputed that the deceased Smt. Vidya Devi was married to one of the accused Subhash Chand on 23.11.1989. The other two accused Puran Chand and - 2 - Smt. Brahmi Devi are the parents of Subhash Chand. Smt Vidya Devi committed suicide in the house of her brothers on 26.10.1991. One of her brothers filed a complaint to the police that Smt. Vidya Devi had committed suicide on account of the harassment meted out to her by the accused. On the basis of this, FIR was registered. After investigation, challan was filed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW1 Dhani Ram and PW2 Megh Nath are brothers of the deceased. According to them, soon-after the marriage of the deceased with Subhash Chand on 23.11.1989, the deceased started complaining that her in-laws used to harass her. They also stated that the husband and in-laws were not willing to meet her day to day expenses and they had to give her money on this account. It is also alleged that the deceased sent letters and telegram to PW2 alleging maltreatment and cruelty by the accused. It is further the case of the prosecution that Megh Nath, one of the brothers, lodged a complaint with the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, who thereafter told the accused not to trouble the deceased. It is, however, admitted by all that the deceased for more than one year before her suicide - 3 - was residing with her brothers and was not residing with the accused. She had also filed a petition for grant of maintenance but before the matter could be taken up, she committed suicide. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the alleged letters and telegram were actually sent by the deceased. Assuming for the sake of arguments that these letters and telegram were sent by the deceased then also it cannot be said that she committed suicide because of ill treatment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused. She admittedly was living in her brothers’ house for more than one year. She had also taken legal advice and had filed a petition for maintenance. She separated from her in-laws about one year prior to the suicide. Assuming that she was not treated well, it is apparent that there was no immediate maltreatment by the accused. The harassment and maltreatment, if any, occurred more than one year earlier. What was the immediate cause which led her to take the drastic step of committing suicide is definitely not the ill-treatment by her in-laws. It would be pertinent to mention that the version of the brothers that the deceased had made a - 4 - complaint to the Pradhan is belied by the statement of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Shri Saran Dass (PW8). According to him, he had received a letter Ex.PG/1 and thereafter called the deceased Smt. Vidya Devi. However, Smt Vidya Devi denied that she had sent the letter. He has emphatically denied that either the deceased or her brothers ever complained to him about the alleged maltreatment. PW9 who is also one of the villagers, has also not supported the prosecution version and states that the deceased had never complained about any ill-treatment in her presence. Even PW10 has not supported the prosecution version. Other than the family members, all the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version that the deceased was being ill-treated by her in-laws. Even if it be assumed that there was some maltreatment, this maltreatment was obviously more than one year old and it has no direct relationship with the suicide of the deceased. The suicide cannot be attributed to or connected with the alleged cruelty and misbehaviour which took place more than one year earlier. - 5 - In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. (Deepak Gupta), J. November 14, 2008. ( V.K.Ahuja), J. s.