IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.745 of 2000. Decided on: December 2, 2010. _________________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. ……..Appellant. Versus Kartar Chand and others. …..Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? Yes. For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate. SURINDER SINGH, J (oral): The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents passed in Sessions Case No.25-P/VII of 1998 on 26.9.2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. Lata Kumari (deceased) wife of respondent Kartar Chand was a graduate from Delhi University. In the month of March, 1995, she was married to respondent Kartar Chand in village Maniar, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Kangra, H.P. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - (ii) Respondent No.2 Jaimal Singh the brother-in- law, respondent No.3 Kaushalya Devi mother-in-law and respondent No.4 Smt. Pawna Devi was sister-in- law of the deceased. (iii) After the marriage, when deceased visited her parents, no complaint was made by her with respect to anything. Next time, she visited in the rainy season and alleged that her husband and mother-in-law used to insist upon her to do the agricultural work, which she did not know and also alleged that she had brought insufficient dowry. (iv) After sometime, she made a complaint to her parents that her husband used to give her beatings on the instigation of her mother-in-law. On this, her father contacted and told them not to harass his daughter. (v) In the month of October, 1996, respondent Kartar Chand visited the house of the parents of his wife and took `13,000/- for getting her admitted in the B.Ed. course to be done from Jammu & Kashmir University. On the third day thereafter, PW1 Parmodh Chand received a telephonic message that his daughter had taken poison and had been - 3 - admitted in Sujanpur hospital. He rushed to the hospital and by that time, she had already died. (vi) Next day, PW1 Parmodh Chand lodged FIR Ex.PA in the Police Station. Police visited the spot. They obtained Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PB from the hospital, where she was admitted at 3.30 p.m. As per certificate she was declared as dead at 4 p.m. During that time, she remained unconscious and did not respond to any stimuli, but as per the doctor, she smelt of like phosphine gas. The dead body was sent for autopsy. (vii) PW8 Dr. Abha Gautam conducted the postmortem. No external injury on the person of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor, she had died due to cardio-respiratory arrest. The viscera was sent for the forensic examination. The report Ex.PJ was received, whereby no poisonous substance was found in the viscera and the opinion already given remained the same. 3. After recording the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the challan, it was presented before the court for the trial of the respondents. They were charge-sheeted, tried and acquitted for the - 4 - aforesaid offences, on the grounds that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were different and contradictory with regard to mal- treatment. This apart, the deceased had studied in Delhi University upto the graduation and married in small village with respondent Kartar Chand, which is not even a sub-divisional headquarter and she was asked to work in the fields, to which she did not visualize at the time of her marriage that she will have to work in the fields. Further that the respondents tried to admit her in the B.Ed. course, which required around `30,000/-, out of which `13,000/- were paid by PW1 Parmodh Chand her father for her admission. The allegation to perform the second marriage by the parents of the respondent Kartar Chand as stated by some of the prosecution witnesses was not found reliable and correct. It was also observed by the learned trial Court that the husband of the deceased had also gone to Jammu for her admission and after about three days, when she died, he returned the amount taken from her father. Since there was no cruelty of the nature which compelled her to finish herself and - 5 - there was no cogent evidence that the respondents had abetted the alleged offence of suicide, hence they were acquitted for the offences aforesaid. 4. We have scanned the evidence on record closely and very minutely. 5. As already stated above, PW1 Parmodh Chand and PW5 Smt. Kanta Devi are parents of the deceased. PW2 Bihari Lal Maternal Uncle and PW9 Smt. Pinki Devi is her cousin. 6. PW1 Parmodh Chand although stated about having made a complaint by the deceased to him on her second visit during rainy season about bringing insufficient dowry and that she did not know the agricultural work and also with regard to beatings, but when confronted with his statement Ex.PA the allegations of beatings and demand of dowry were not found mentioned. He admitted that his daughter wanted to do B.Ed. and even her husband supported it and allowed her to do the same for which he also assured to extend help to them. He knew that for B.Ed. course from Jammu, they had been charging capitation fee ranging from `25,000/- to `30,000/-. He also admitted that when - 6 - her husband Kartar Chand was away to Jammu in connection with her admission, in his absence, she had died. He also admitted that after her death, respondent Kartar Chand, who was teaching in Janta Public School at that time had returned `13,000/-, which was earlier paid by him. He denied that he had concealed from the respondents that his deceased daughter was having heart problem. 7. PW5 Smt. Kanta Devi, the mother of the deceased also made similar statement. Pertinently she also corroborated the version of her husband with respect to pursuing her studies further, after the marriage, but she has contradicted him to the extent that her husband did not agree with the further studies. She also stated that Kartar Chand had played a fraud by saying at the time of settling her marriage that he was serving at Chandigarh. When confronted with this portion of her earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this fact also did not find mentioned. She further stated that the respondents had been insisting upon the deceased to give divorce as complained by her daughter, but this fact - 7 - was also not found mentioned in her police statement, however, she admitted that Kartar Chand who himself was M.A. B.Ed, respondent used to go to Jammu & Kashmir in connection with the admission of his wife. 8. PW2 Bihari Lal maternal uncle of the deceased has given another story. According to him, the deceased looked depressed when she visited the house of her parents in rainy season. She was asked about her welfare and stated that her husband used to say that she was ‘Gawar’ and she would be divorced. She was also given beatings and would be divorced. She happened to meet him only for 30 minutes in the house of her parents when this conversation took place, but when confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was not found mentioned. He admitted that this fact was disclosed for the first time in the court and denied that the story was cooked up against the respondents. 9. PW4 Meera Devi is the younger sister of the deceased. She stated that the deceased had complained to her that the respondents used to say - 8 - that she did not know any agricultural work and should bring money from her father and her brother- in-law Jaimal Singh also insisted upon her to seek divorce and told that his brother respondent Kartar Chand would perform second marriage. She also stated that on 25th January, 1996, deceased met her in the marriage of a cousin at Delhi and made the complaint, but when confronted with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., this fact was not found mentioned. This was an improved version. However, she admitted that Lata Devi deceased was aware that after the marriage, she has to live in village Maniar where her husband used to reside and she also fully well knew that they were agriculturist, but voluntarily stated that they never told that she would have to work in the fields after the marriage, rather stated that they played a fraud assuring that she will not have to work in the fields and also stated that no fraud was played to perform the marriage. 10. PW6 Smt. Sapna Devi did not support the case of the prosecution, as such she was declared hostile. She admitted that she was very close to Lata Devi and used to sit with her at times. She stated that - 9 - respondent Jaimal Singh was serving at Pandoh and he used to visit his village after 3-4 months and respondent Kartar Chand her husband was working in a private school at a distance of about 7 k.m. She admitted that the behaviour of the respondents was very cordial with the deceased and they used to love her. She further stated that her husband had been making sincere efforts to seek her admission to some course and he also pursued her admission in Jammu and Kashmir, but the respondent never maltreated her, either for dowry or otherwise. 11. On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence with respect to the cruelty, we did not find even an iota of evidence to prove the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents and we concur with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court that the deceased was graduated from Delhi University and was married in a small village in District Kangra. Her in-laws were agriculturist and the work in the field was implied and also sometimes necessitated by the females in a rural background. This could have also caused depression to her as she - 10 - never expected to have faced such a situation after doing graduation from the best University of the country. Further we find that the demand of dowry is also not established. Even the amount of `13,000/- which was sought as a help was also returned to PW1 Parmod Chand by her husband after her death. Not only this, in the instant case, everybody in the family of the respondents were not averse to her further studies. Even her husband, when she is alleged to have consumed the poison, was also away to Jammu arranging for her admission in B.Ed. course. 12. Yet, there is another fact that there is no clinching evidence with respect to consumption of the poison by the deceased, except a fleeting reference in the Medico Legal Certificate Ex.PB that the smell like phosphine was emanating from her, but her vomittance was not taken into possession for the forensic examination. The examination of viscera did not show the contents of any poison, rather as per the opinion of the doctor, she had died on account of cardio-respiratory failure, admittedly which could be because of number of reasons. - 11 - Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove even suicide having been committed by the deceased by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The possibility of death could be natural due to cardio-respiratory problem and also the evidence regarding abetting the commission of the suicide by the deceased is also lacking. 13. Therefore, the conclusion, which we could derive from the above evidence is that the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court, are reasonable and borne out from the record. Thus, the acquittal of the respondents does not warrant any interference. The appeal filed by the State sans merit, hence dismissed. 14. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of this case. 15. Send down the records. (R.B. Misra), Judge. December 2, 2010. (Surinder Singh), (Pds) Judge.