IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.507 of 2001 Date of Decision : 04.05.2011 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus: Manohar Lal & Another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A. G. For the respondents: Mr. Naresh K. Thakur, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J.(Oral) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 2.3.1999, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 30.5.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Una, in Sessions Case No. 9/2000 & 23/2000 RBT, titled as State of H.P. vs. Manohar Lal & another, accused stand acquitted of the charged offences. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Saroj Kumari was married to Manohar Lal (accused No.1) sometime in the year 1996. Through the wedlock, one 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 child was born. Accused No.1 and his mother Gurdao Devi (accused No.2) had been maltreating the deceased for having brought insufficient dowry. Seven to eight months prior to March, 1999, Subhash Chand, brother of the deceased and his wife Krishna Devi had visited Saroj Kumari at her matrimonial house. There she complained about the conduct of the accused. When confronted by Subhash Chand, accused promised to mend their conduct. However, the atrocities continued and resultantly on 2nd of March, 1999 deceased committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Sh. Gurnam Singh, elder brother of the deceased was informed by the accused. He arrived at the spot. While the dead body was being taken to the cremation ground, Subhash Chand protested that matter be reported to the police and post mortem conducted. Subhash Chand informed the police by making statement (Ext.PA) on the basis of which F.I.R. No.38/99(Ext.PW-8/A) dated 2.3.1999 under Sections 306, 498-A, 34 IPC was registered with Police Station, Una. Inquest report (Ext.PB) was prepared by the police, post mortem was conducted at the Civil Hospital by Dr. Vipan Chander (PW-11). The matter was investigated by the police. Cot found at the spot in a totally burnt condition was recovered. Photographs of the spot were also taken. Statements of the relevant parties were recorded and challan presented in the Court for trial. 3 3. The accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 306, 498- A IPC both read with section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case prosecution examined 13 witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C were also recorded in which they took the following defence:- “In fact, my mother Gur Dei had a tumour on the left side of her chest regarding which on that day my father, mother, myself and my wife decided to get her operated after 7 days at Chandigarh and it was also decided that I would take mother to Chandigarh whereas my father and my wife were to stay back at the house. After this decision my father went out to work as labourer in the morning. After departure we three had taken our breakfast. Since I am in service at Chandigarh, so I left for the Bus Stand at Jawar for catching a Bus to Chandigarh at 11 A.M. My mother accompanied me to see me off at the Bus Stand. We had left the house at about 10.30 A.M. for the Bus Stand and the deceased insisted that she be also taken to Chandigarh. But as per our decision, she had to stay back in the house alongwith my mother, so we left her at the house and went for the Bus Stand. After leaving me at the Bus Stand my mother came back to the house whereas I was informed after some time that my wife had set herself at fire and committed suicide. The distance between Bus 4 Stand and my house is about one K.M. Usually I and my wife had been residing at Chandigarh. About 15 days prior to this incident I had left my wife at the house of my parents and had gone back to Chandigarh. Thereafter, I came back to parent’s house from Chandigarh on 1.3.1999, so I am innocent.” 4. Appreciating the material on record, the Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we find no ground or reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Prosecution has failed to link the accused with the alleged crime and proved their guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material. 6. Before we deal with the statement of Subhash Chand (PW-1) and his wife Krishna Devi (PW-5), we shall first deal with the other evidence on record. 7. From the statement of Dr. Vipin Chander(PW- 11) as also the inquest report (Ext.PB) and the post mortem report (Ext.PW-11/A), it is evident that Saroj Kumari had died due to burn injuries. 8. Sh. Rajinder Kumar (PW-7), in no uncertain terms has deposed that at the time of the alleged 5 crime he was the Pradhan of the area. He was informed about the fact and the cause of the death of the deceased. He reached the spot where amongst others accused No.1 and Gurnam Singh (PW-3) were present. He inquired from Gurnam Singh as to whether the matter was required to be reported to the police or not. Gurnam Singh told him that deceased had committed suicide and, as such, there was no need to report the matter to the police. Consequently, dead body was taken for cremation. However, on the way they met Subhash Chand, who wanted the matter to be reported to the police. Accordingly, police was informed about the same. This witness has not been cross-examined by the prosecution at all. His testimony clearly establishes the fact that Gurnam Singh, was satisfied about the cause of the death which was suicide. The version of this witness stands fully corroborated by neighbour Sh. Dev Raj (PW-6), according to whom, Gurnam Singh was fully satisfied about the cause of the death. Most importantly this witness has deposed that the accused never harassed or ill-treated the deceased, who was “short tempered” and used to get “angry for trivial reasons”. The deceased had wanted to go Chandigarh with her husband but was told that she would be taken only at the time of operation of accused No.2. This witness has further deposed that not only the elder brother of the deceased but also all other persons who 6 had come from the village of the deceased were fully satisfied and were of the opinion that the police is not required to be called. Significantly this witness has also not been cross-examined by the prosecution. 9. Significantly Sh. Gurnam Singh (PW-3), real brother of the deceased has not supported the prosecution story at all. He has in fact corroborated the version given by PW-6 & PW-7. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. Inspite of the same, prosecution could not elicit any truth from his testimony. He categorically denies that his sister ever made any complaint about the harassment caused by the accused to her. 10. In this background, testimonies of the remaining prosecution witnesses, namely, Subhash Chand (PW-1), Kamal Deen (PW-4) and Krishna Devi (PW-5) need to be examined. 11. It appears that PW-4 has been introduced by the prosecution later on. He admits that no threats were ever given by the accused to the deceased in his presence. He thus contradicts his earlier version to the effect that the accused gave beating and maltreated the deceased. This witness is not related to Subhash Chand, who ordinarily does not reside in the village. He is also not a friend of Subhash Chand. 7 Consequently, there was no occasion for him to have ever accompanied Subhash Chand to the house of the deceased or heard the conversations entered into between the deceased and Subhash Chand. 12. Testimony of PW-1, to our mind, does not inspire confidence, more so, in view of the contradictory version given by his real brother. In our view, his statement does not establish the fact that dowry demands were made by the accused or that the accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide by subjecting her to cruelty falling within the definition of Section 498-A IPC. We find that he has also made several improvements from his earlier version (Ext.PA) recorded by the police under Section 154 Cr.PC. wherein he gives reference of incidents pertaining to only two occasions when the deceased had informed him about the alleged acts of cruelty. However in Court he gives reference of three incidents. That apart, in his statement (Ext.PA), there is no reference of dowry demands. All that is stated is that accused used to harass and cause cruelty to the deceased and accused No.1 used to beat her. However in Court, he gives reference of dowry demands. According to the prosecution, even though accused were confronted by Subhash Chand with regard to the alleged beatings given by the accused and harassment caused to the deceased, yet no complaint 8 was ever lodged by Subhash Chand with any person. Pradhan of the area has categorically deposed that the accused did not cause any cruelty to the deceased. Further, this witness admits that his version that he received a written communication from the deceased with regard to the alleged incident does not find mention in his statement (Ext.PA) with which he was confronted. It appears that the witness has not deposed truthfully. If there was any such letter, it would have found reference not only in his statement (Ext.PA), but would have been handed over to the police during investigation. We also find his version of telephonic conversations pertaining to demands of dowry not to be recorded in statement (Ext.PA). Thus this witness has made several improvements. Importantly, this witness admits that accused No.2 was to be operated upon and that the accused persons had in fact left for the Bus Stand for proceeding towards Chandigarh. This is totally in consonance with the defence taken by the accused while reporting to the police. He only suspected the hand of the accused. Had he been sure he would have definitely given reference of the communication written or oral. For the very same reason, we also find the version of Krishna Devi not to inspire confidence. 13. The prosecution witnesses with regard to the alleged acts of cruelty are unspecific. Except for 9 bald assertions, there is nothing on record to substantiate this fact. How?, why?, in what manner? and in whose presence? did the accused cause cruelty to the deceased is not substantiated on record. 14. In our view, prosecution has failed to prove that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty by any willful conduct which is of such a nature and manner so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. There is no iota of evidence to prove that any dowry was ever given to the accused or that any dowry demands were made. It also cannot be said that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty by causing harassment with a view to coerce her to meet the unlawful demands of dowry. It also cannot be said that the accused had abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Thus the provisions of Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked in the instant case. Statutory presumption is to be invoked only where the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused had been continuously harassing and subjecting the deceased to cruelty with respect to demands of dowry. 15. In view of the contradictions on record and also the fact that prosecution has not been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. 10 16. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the persons has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. ( R. B. Misra ) Judge. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 4, 2011. (rana)