IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.275 of 1995 Judgment reserved on:24.4.2009. Date of decision: 27.4.2009. State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Gulat Ram … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant: M/s.R.M. Bisht & Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. For the respondent: Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate ____________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.6.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla in Sessions Trial No.24-S/7 of 1992, whereby she acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A IPC. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 The admitted facts are that the deceased Satya Devi was married to Sh.Gulat Ram. Sometime after the marriage Smt. Satya Devi committed suicide by hanging herself from a tree on 5.2.1991. The parents of the deceased alleged that she was being harassed and tortured by her husband i.e. the accused Gulat Ram for bring insufficient dowry. It was also alleged that she was subjected to cruelty for not bringing dowry and this harassment forced her to commit suicide. During investigation, the police took into possession two letters Exts.P-2 and P-3 written by the deceased to her parents in which there was some demand for furniture etc. The police investigated the case and on the basis of the investigation challan was filed against the accused. The accused on appearance pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial the accused has been acquitted on the ground that the prosecution has failed to show that there was any demand of dowry or the deceased has been treated with cruelty. Hence, the present appeal. We have heard Sh.R.M.Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and Sh.Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the accused. 3 The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the letters Exts.P-2 and P-3. If these letters are read carefully, it is apparent that there is no demand of dowry made by the accused. One of the letters Ext.P-2 is dated 18.6.1990 that is about 8 months prior to the suicide. In this letter the deceased has written to her father to ask her maternal grand father to get prepared one bed, two chairs and a table for her. She has also asked for one silver pendant. She has requested that these articles may be given to her at the time when the ‘Dehnoj’ ceremony is performed. This is a ceremony which takes place at the time when the daughter comes to her parental house for the first time after marriage. In this letter the deceased has also asked her father to invite all the relatives and to get ‘katha’ performed. There is nothing in this letter to show that these items were demanded by her husband or her in-laws. There is no material on record to show that this letter was written at the instance of the accused. This letter only states that the deceased herself wanted her maternal grand father and father to provide these items. Ext.P-2 is an undated letter. According to this letter, the deceased informed her father that her husband is ailing. She has requested her father to come to Rohru 4 and take care of her and her husband. In fact this letter shows that the deceased and her husband were in great love. She writes that if any thing happens to her husband she will not live much longer. She has complained that her husband’s bua is harassing her because according to bua the husband is now totally in control of the deceased. There is no mention of this letter of any harassment at the hands of her husband. There is no mention of any demand of dowry by the husband or his relatives. PW-8 Kanshi Ram is the father of the deceased. He states that the marriage was solemnized four years back. This does not appear to be correct since in the letter dated 18.6.1990 the deceased is talking about the items to be given in ‘Dehnoj’ ceremony. He states that the deceased has told him that the accused demanded dowry from her and beat her and that he sent her daughter back only when Amin Chand, Uncle of the accused assured him that the daughter would be kept properly. He and Sant Lal thereafter went to leave the daughter. Sant Lal was examined as PW-14. He did not support the prosecution case at all. According to him, the deceased had no problem with the accused. Even 5 according to father the only items demanded in dowry were the table and chairs. He also admits that after the couple came in the ‘Dehnoj’ ceremony they went back happy and no demand whatsoever was made thereafter. He has also admitted that his daughter was a very sensitive and touchy person. This witness admits that neither at the time of marriage nor at the time of ‘Dehnoj’ the accused and his family members made any demand for dowry. PW-9 is the grand mother of deceased. Her statement is very vague and general in nature. She has not pin-pointed any specific occasion when any demand for dowry was made. It is also important to note that she contradicts her son about the two letters Exts.P-2 and P-3. Whereas, according to Kanshi Ram these letters were never read out in his presence, this witness states that said letters were never read out in his presence. This witness states that said letters were read out by her grand son who is educated and they all heard the contents thereof. PW-10 Kewla Devi is the mother of the deceased. Her statement is also of general nature that the accused quarreled with her daughter for insufficient dowry. She admits that her daughter and son-in-law stayed with 6 them. She brings out a different version with regard to demand of dowry. According to her, the daughter demanded a sofa set in the ‘Dehnoj’. Other witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. None of the independent witnesses, that is, the villagers of the area have supported the case of the prosecution. The statements of the aforesaid three witnesses are contradictory with each other and the letters themselves, as discussed above, clearly show that no demand of dowry was made. There is nothing to show that the deceased was treated with cruelty. The learned trial Judge was totally justified in acquitting the accused. The judgment calls for no interference. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. April 27, 2009 ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. PV