1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 632 of 2001 Decided on May 16, 2011 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ravinder Kumar ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. Justice R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 31.08.2001, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No.12-K/VII/2000, under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code acquitting the alleged respondent- accused. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a complaint lodged by Pratap Chand that he has one son and two daughters and his daughter Smt.Sushma Devi was married to Ravinder Kumar, accused, about two years back and on 3.6.1999 at 2.00 A.M., in the night, two or three persons came to his house and told that Sushma Devi was sick and admitted in Shahpur 2 hospital. When Pratap Chand (PW.3), father of Smt.Sushma Devi (deceased) went to the hospital, he found Smt.Sushma Devi dead. The matter was reported to the police. Postmortem examination was conducted and after investigation accused was charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case. 4. PW.1 Dr.Mohan Singh examined the victim Sushma Devi on 2.6.1999 and at that time she was not found fit to give statement. PW.1 has stated that victim Sushma Devi was brought to the hospital by her husband, mother-in-law accompanied by lady Pnchayat 'Pradhan'. PW.1 Dr.Mohan Singh has further stated that whatsoever medicines were prescribed by him, attendant accused brought the same to the hospital immediately. 5. PW.2 Dr.Dinesh Mehta, on receipt of application dated 3.6.1999 for conducting postmortem, examined the dead body of Sushma Devi and found no external injury on her person, however, opined that victim died due to asphyxia and possibility of aluminum phosphide accidentally cannot be ruled out. 6. PW.3 Sh.Pratap Chand, in support of the prosecution case, has stated that whenever Sushma was coming to his house, she used to tell her mother that her 3 husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to torture and maltreat her. About 7 months after the marriage, mother-in- law and father-in-law of the deceased separated the victim, and then accused took Sushma to Pathankot. From Pathankot, Sushma telephoned to her mother and told that she was ill, on which her mother went to Pathankot with `1000/- and stayed there for three days. Thereafter, Smt.Lalita Devi came back to her house, however, at that time accused gave severe beatings to Sushma and after 4-5 days of giving beatings, accused brought Sushma to the house of PW.3 Pratap Chand and left there. The victim narrated the beatings given to her by the accused at Pathankot. As per testimony of PW.3, subsequent beatings were given by the accused to deceased Sushma. About 10-12 days prior to the death of Smt.Sushma, she came to the house of her parents alone and apprised her mother that accused had given beatings and behaviour of her husband was the same as it was earlier. PW.3 Pratap Chand was not able to tell the date and month when her daughter told regarding beatings to his wife (PW.4). PW.3, in cross-examination, has very categorically indicated that his daughter (victim/deceased) had told regarding beatings to her mother (PW.4), however, neither any report was lodged to the police nor any report was even made in writing to 'Pradhan' of Panchayat. PW.3 in cross-examination has also stated that he was not aware that victim-deceased took the medicine by mistake, thinking that the medicine was 4 for head ache. 7. PW.4 Smt.Lalita Devi, in support of the prosecution case, has stated that her daughter Sushma was kept nicely by the accused for 6-7 months. Thereafter, her daughter came to the house and apprised her that her mother-in-law and father- in-law were torturing her and thereafter husband also started torturing her. PW.4 Smt.Lalita has also visited the victim at Pathankot and came back after 3 days from Pathankot and after her coming from Pathankot, accused gave beatings to Smt.Sushma (deceased). After sometime, PW.3 Sh.Pratap Chand and PW.4 Smt.Lalita Devi went to the house of their daughter Smt.Sushma (deceased). The grand father and grand mother of the accused and in-laws of Sushma as well as 'Pradhan' Bikrma were present in the house of the accused, where 'Pradhan' assured them that nobody will maltreat or torture Sushma. Thereafter, 5-7 months Sushma (deceased) was kept nicely. PW.4 Smt.Lalita Devi, however, did not reveal to the police that after 7 months father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim-deceased have separated Sushma and her husband. PW.4 was also not aware about the date, month and year when accused took Sushma to Pathankot. PW.4 Smt.Lalita Devi was also not aware about the date, month and year when she received telephone call from her daughter that she was short of money and she was being given beatings. PW.4, however, also not aware that when accused left his job at Pathankot. As per 5 testimony of PW.4 Smt.Lalita Devi, she never made any complaint to the police regarding beatings and torturing of the victim. 8. PW.5 ASI Mohinder Singh and PW.6 SI Kushal Kumar, in due discharge of their official duty have endeavoured to support the prosecution case. 9. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that PW.1 Dr.Mohan Singh and PW.2 Dr.Dinesh Mehta had not noticed any external injury on the person of the victim-deceased and have only indicated that death by consuming aluminum phosphide cannot be ruled out. In our considered view, the death of the victim Sushma undisputedly was because of the asphyxia and by consuming of aluminum phosphide, however, none of the prosecution witnesses specifically PW.3 Sh.Pratap Chand being the father of the victim-deceased and PW.4 Smt.Lalita Devi being mother had not made any complaint to the police or any villager or to the Gram Panchayat 'Pradhan' regarding specific maltreatment, cruelty and beatings made over Smt.Sushma (deceased). Ex.PJ made at the instance of PW.3 Sh.Pratap Chand i.e. the father of the victim-deceased, also did not refer or mention that PW.4 Smt.Lalita Devi had gone to Pathankot with `1000/- to attend her daughter Sushma (deceased). Non mentioning of specific torture, maltreatment and beating makes the case of the prosecution doubtful, moreso, when prosecution case is solely dependent upon the allegation that because of cruelty and 6 maltreatment, the victim-deceased was forced to commit suicide. Surprisingly, Bikrama, said to be the 'Pradhan' of the Panchayat, who had assured the parents of the victim- deceased, was not examined. No independent person including any of the villagers or any independent person of the locality was examined to indicate about the maltreatment or beating given by the accused to the victim-deceased. 10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and on analysis of the prosecution witnesses as well as materials on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that cruelty on the part of the respondent-accused is not proved. In our considered view the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused. Therefore, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 11. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondent are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge May 16, 2011 (V.K. Sharma) (Purohit) Judge