IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 275 of 1996 Date of decision: 8.3.2010 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Jagroop Chand and others ... Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For the respondents: Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Kangra District at Dharmshala, in Sessions case No.13-P/94 dated 25.8.1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 306/498-A IPC. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Sunita Devi was married to accused Jagroop Chand in April, 1986. Accused No.2 Kamiran Devi is her mother-in-law and accused No.3 Veena Devi is her sister-in-law. The case of the prosecution is that the accused committed suicide a few days before the completion of seven years of marriage and since she died an unnatural death, a presumption under Section 113(B) of the Evidence Act will arise that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry. However, this presumption does not 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 arise in the present case because even according to the prosecution no demand for dowry was made at any time. The main question which arises in the case is whether the deceased was treated with cruelty of such manner and extent that she was forced to commit suicide and the accused are guilty of offences punishable under Section 498 and this has led to her commit suicide which would make them liable to be punished under Section 306 IPC. The postmortem of the deceased reveals that she died due to cardio respiratory failure which was a result of aluminium phosphide poisoning. There is no serious dispute about this fact. The defence is that in fact on the previous night the deceased had consumed fish and thereafter she suffered diarrhea and vomiting and had also vomited and died thereafter. PW-1 Smt. Godan Devi is the mother of the deceased. She states that the marriage between the deceased and accused No.1 took place about seven years prior to the death in April. Her statement is quite vague. Firstly, she states that it is only the accused persons who know how they have treated the deceased. She further states that the deceased told her (the mother) that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law used to beat her. It would be mentioned that this portion of the original statement has not been properly translated into English. The English version as translated is as follows:- 3 “However, the deceased never told me that she was being treated properly by them. She used to complain to me that all the accused used to give beating to her besides her Dever.” She further goes on to state that they took no action in the matter since they thought that things would improve over a period of time. She further states that she had told these facts to her sisters and their husbands. According to her on 30.3.1993 she was at Palampur with her daughter when they received a message that the deceased had died in the house of in-laws and they should reach immediately. Her son-in-law went first and she and her daughter followed later. When they reached Rit they saw marks of violence on the chest and back of the deceased. She made a statement Ext.PA to the police. She also handed over letter Ext.PC to the police which was allegedly written by the deceased to her mother though addressed to PW-6 Sarmishtha. PW-2 Jeewan Lata is the sister of the deceased and she has virtually reiterated what has been stated by her mother. PW-3 Brahmu Ram is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, Rit, in whose jurisdiction the village in which the deceased was residing with her in-laws falls. Shri Brahmu Ram states that in the evening of 29.3.1993 he was informed by Sarvati Devi, aunt (Massi) of the deceased, that the deceased had died all of a sudden and her dead body may not be cremated till other family 4 members comes since she (Sarvati Devi) suspected some foul play. He, therefore, instructed the in-laws of the deceased not to cremate the dead body and next day the dead body was handed over to the police after the close relatives arrived at the village. In cross-examination he states that two sons of the deceased were living with her alongwith her mother-in-law. He also states that the deceased wanted that her children should be educated at Palampur but accused Jagroop Chand did not agree on the ground that he cannot bear the expenses in this regard. He also states that till 1990 he being in the army does not know what were the relations between the deceased and her in-laws. But thereafter no complaint was ever made to him by the deceased or any other person about ill-treatment being meted out to her by her in-laws. PW-4 Yudhvir Chand is the brother-in-law of the deceased and has only stated that he was informed about the death of the deceased and came to the village. He does not state that the in- laws used to ill-treat the deceased. PW-6 Sarmishtha Sharma is the lady to whom letter Ext.PC is addressed. She states that the deceased used to address letters in her name though they were meant for her mother since the mother was illiterate and her eye sight was also weak. She in turn read out the letters to the mother. She also states that the deceased told her that when her husband was not present, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law 5 used to quarrel with her and harass her. They also repeated the same behaviour when her husband came on leave. Pw-7 Santosh Kumar is the first cousin of the deceased. She was also married in village Rit. According to her the deceased had told her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to quarrel with her on petty matters and they as well as her husband used to beat her. She has made certain improvements as to the cause of such beatings which cannot be taken into consideration since these are not the basis of the complaint nor any witness has stated about them. She states that even one day prior to her death the deceased had told her that the accused were quarreling with her. According to this witness on the day of occurrence she had gone to the house of the deceased since other villagers were going on to the house of the in-laws of the deceased as the deceased was lying unconscious. The in-laws of the deceased told her that the deceased was suffering from dysentery and vomiting after she had consumed fish. The deceased died at the house of her in-laws at about 4.30-5.00 p.m. In examination-in-chief she states that the deceased was unconscious. In cross-examination she states that she asked the deceased what had happened to her then the deceased informed her that she was not feeling well and some lemon water should be given to her and then she accompanied the deceased when she was being taken to the Hospital by accused Jagroop Chand 6 and on the way the deceased died. There are contradictions in the statement of the witness. In the first portion of her statement she states that the deceased was unconscious but in cross-examination she states that the deceased talked to her. In her examination she states that the deceased died at home but in cross-examination she states that the deceased died while being taken in a taxi to Palampur. The other witnesses are formal in nature, except PW-9 Dr. Chain Singh, who stated that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory rest which was the result of aluminium phosphide poisoning. From the above evidence, it is more than apparent that the deceased died an unnatural death. The case of the prosecution is that she committed suicide because of the acts of cruelty of the accused. There are material contradictions in the prosecution version. PW-1 Godan Devi, the mother does not state that Jagroop Chand ever beat the deceased. According to PW-1 it was the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law who used to beat her. PW-2 Smt. Jeewan Lata improves upon her version and states that even the husband used to give beatings to the deceased. PW-6 Sarmishtha Sharma states that deceased only complained about the mother-in-law and sister-in-law. There is no allegation against the husband in her statement and the only 7 allegation against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law is that they used to quarrel and harass the deceased. PW-7 Santosh Kumari adds a new twist and states that the deceased had told her that her mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to quarrel with her on petty matters and all the three accused used to beat her and on one occasion deceased husband had beaten her on the ground that the deceased had illicit relation with the younger brother of the husband. She further states that when the alleged incident took place she was in Delhi. Though the mother has stated that she used to discuss the matter with her sisters and their husbands but none of them have been examined in the Court. In Indian conditions it may be true that the police or the Panchayat is not informed at the first instance because the parents of a girl try to patch up the matter. However, if beatings continue for a long period of time then a complaint will be made either to the person who arranged the wedding or to the members of the ‘Biradiri’. For seven years there cannot be total silence and there would have been some independent witnesses to the cruelty. None from the village of the in-laws except PW-7, who is the first cousin of the deceased has supported the prosecution case. Admittedly, the village is a small cluster of 6-7 houses and if the deceased was being beaten up, some of the other villagers would have spoken up. In fact 8 there is no material on record that the prosecution even tried to associate any of the neighbouring villagers. Another important aspect of the matter is that other than making a general allegation of harassment and cruelty no specific instances have been given. The letter Ext.PC has been discarded by the learned trial Court on the ground that it is not proved to have been written by the deceased to her mother. However, we are not agreement with the learned trial Court that the letter was addressed to PW-6. A perusal of the letter shows that it is addressed to the mother and one other lady Beebeeji. Since the letter is addressed as dear Beebeeji and Mameeji. The explanation of PW-6 that the letters meant for the mother of the deceased were addressed to her cannot be said to be totally false. The sister of the deceased had proved the handwriting of the deceased and there is virtually no material cross-examination on this aspect. However, even if we hold that the letter was written by the deceased it does not help the prosecution because this letter was written in the year 1987, six years before she committed suicide. The only complaint made in the letter is that she was ill-treated by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and her husband does not listen to her. As against this evidence, the mother herself states that one week prior to the suicide the deceased and her husband Jagroop had come and stayed with her for about three days. 9 During this period the deceased had not made any complaint either against her husband or against her mother-in-law. What transpired in one week when the deceased came back from the mother’s house till the date when she commits suicide is something which has not come on record. In the absence of any such evidence the prosecution has failed to prove its case. In view of the above discussion we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 8th March, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) ™ Judge.