IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 720 of 2002. Date of Decision: October 12,2011. _______________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. ….Appellant. Versus. 1.Rameshwari wd/o Sh.Ranjhu Ram 2.Asha Devi W/o Sh.Atma Ram 3.Lata Devi w/o Sh.Lekh Ram 4.Lekh Ram s/o Sh.Ranjhu Ram 5.Amar Nath s/o Sh.Ranjhu Ram All residents of village Sargal, Police Station, Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P. 6.Madan Lal s/o Sh.Bhagat Ram, R/o Borthin, Police Station Talai, District Bilaspur, H.P. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. For the appellant: :Mr. R.K.Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondents: :Mr.J.L.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes.. 2 Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). The State appeals against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur acquitting the respondents of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. Deceased Nirmla Devi was the wife of respondent No.5 Amar Nath. She was married to him in the year 1992. It is undisputed that he was working as a driver at Delhi and she was living at her in-laws house with her mother-in-law respondent-Rameshwari, her husband’s brother Lekh Ram, his wife Lata Devi and elder sister-in-law Asha Devi. 3. The case of the prosecution is that deceased lived happily for a few days but thereafter her maltreatment started. In 1993, the respondents beat her up for which a report was lodged with the gram panchayat which sent it to Police Station, Talai, where the matter was compromised and the deceased sent back to her in-laws house. She was not allowed to join the company of her husband at Delhi and whenever she was visited her parents, she complained to them about the maltreatment being meted out to her. Two years prior to the incident, she told her parents that she was turned out of the house by her mother-in-law whereafter she was again sent back to her in-laws. On the intervening night of 16th /17th October, 1995, she committed suicide by hanging herself. 4. PW1 Amar Nath father of the deceased was informed about this maltreatment by a letter written by the 3 Pradhan which was delivered to him by accused Madan Lal. Rapat Ext.PW18/E was recorded after information was received from Pradhan Dharam Singh that one dead body was hanging on the ‘Biul’ tree. PW19 S.I. Jagdish Chand thereafter rushed to the spot and Dy.S.P.Kashmir Singh also reached there. Photographs Ext.PW14/A-1 to Ext.PW14/A-6 were taken on the spot. Inquest report Ext.PW12/E and Ext.PW12/F was prepared. PW1 Amar Nath along with other villagers also reached the spot. Thereafter, his statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the basis of which endorsement Ext.PW19/A was made and F.I.R.Ext.PW18/B was registered. Ext.PW1/B is also a complaint which was made by the father of the deceased. Two letters written by accused Amar Nath to the deceased were taken into custody vide Ext.PW9/A. 5. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses. Three witnesses appeared in defence. PW1 Amar Nath father of the deceased no where stated in his statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. about the demand of dowry. He says that the accused was working as driver at Delhi and his daughter was living with the other members of his family in her in-laws house. In the year 1993, she was beaten up by the other accused. A report was lodged with the gram panchayat and the case was referred to the Police Station, where it was compromised. He then says that whenever his daughter used to visit him, she would complain that she was deprived of food and clothes and her in-laws were treating 4 her with cruelty. He was confronted with Ext.PW1/A where it was not so recorded. In his cross-examination, he admitted that his daughter wanted to live with her husband Amar Nath at Delhi whereas he was insisting that she should stay in the village. She used to complain that there is heavy work in her in-laws house and that her husband was not in the village for the last 3/4 months. PW2 Roshni Devi mother of the deceased corroborates the prosecution but when confronted with statement Ext.DB, she was unable to explain the material contradictions which went to the root of the case. 6. PW3 Jai Devi says that the deceased was beaten up. She reported the matter to Pradhan Dharam Singh, who asked her to take the deceased to her (Jai Devi) house where she could see the injuries on the deceased. The matter was reported to the police where it was compromised. But when confronted with statement Ext.DC, she was unable to explain as to why these facts have not been stated in her statement. The court rejects the evidence of PW5 Nikka Deen because he was involved in a criminal case filed by the accused persons when their houses were burnt by a mob in which he was an active participant. The evidence of PW4 is no better. PW6 Kanta Devi also tried to prove the acts of cruelty but the allegations of what she stated in court were not mentioned in her statement to the police, Ext.DD. To similar effect is the evidence of PW7 Rakesh Kumar brother of the deceased. PW9 Lekh Ram has turned hostile, who was cross examined but nothing material could be elicited from him. 5 7. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of PW11 Bahadur Ram but the learned Judge finds that his statement contains material contradictions inasmuch as he states that he had informed the police that the accused were not providing proper/adequate food to deceased Nirmla Devi but when he was confronted with his statement Ext.DG, it was not so recorded there. He admits that his daughter-in- law is involved in litigation with the accused for burning their house. PW12 Dr.D.R.Sehgal performed the post mortem. 8. Adverting to the statement, the learned Court notes that PW1 Amar Nath, who had stated that he noticed some injuries on the head near the ear of deceased Nirmla Devi but PW12 Dr. D.R.Sehgal does not corroborate this fact. He states that there was a ligature mark around the neck, extending from the front of the neck above the thyroid cartilage. His opinion Ext.PW12/D was rendered after consulting the chemical examiner report Ext.PW12/B and Ext.PW12/C and in his opinion the death was by hanging. 9. We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. What we find from the evidence is that it is an established fact on the record that Ext. DY which is the challan and Ext. DZ is the copy of the F.I.R. under Sections 436, 435, 147, 148, 149 and 506 I.P.C. have been filed against some of the witnesses of the prosecution and this is one factor which has weighed with the learned trial court in 6 assessing the testimony with care and caution. We concur with the conclusion of the learned trial Court. We also find from the record that no demand for dowry was raised by the accused persons. PW9 Lekh Ram and his wife Lata Devi have been living separately from the other accused. Ext.PW9/A and Ext.PW9/B are two letters which have been written by the accused to the deceased and these letters were never put to him in cross-examination. Accused Amar Nath while appearing as DW3 denied that he wrote these letters to his wife but the contents of the letters show that they have been addressed to Amar Nath. Even reading the contents of these letters as they are, they do not establish a consistent conduct of cruelty or demand for dowry but show some kind of advise rendered and also indicated normalcy in the relation between the parties. We reiterate that stray incidents, domestic quarrel and heated arguments between the parties do not constitute maltreatment or abetment unless they be of a nature which compel a person to take the extreme step of ending his/her life.{See: Smt.Padmabai Vs. State of M.P. 1987 Cri.L.J. 1573} 11. We do not find the ingredients of Section 498 A and 306 I.P.C. having been established on the record for the reason that there is no evidence to show that consistent cruel conduct has been established on the part of the accused and there is nothing on record to show that there has been any instigation for any act of omission or commission, which was 7 not directly responsible for forcing the deceased to take this extreme step. 12. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. (R.B.Misra), Judge. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. October 12,2011(R) 8