IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 643 of 1996 Date of decision: 24.4.2010. State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Naratu Ram and others ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For the respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 14.3.1996 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions trial No. 7-S/7 of 1995 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Nirmala Devi was married to Beli Ram. Accused Naratu Ram and Shankri Devi are the parents of Beli Ram, i.e. father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Accused Daya Ram is the brother-in-law of the deceased and accused Shiv Devi is the wife of Daya Ram. It is not disputed that the deceased died due to burning on 24.9.1994. In fact, it was accused Naratu Ram who informed the police about the death of his daughter-in-law the deceased through Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badhlag which in turn sent 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 a message Ext.PW-15/B on the basis of which daily diary report Ext.PW15/A was entered by the Station House Officer PW-15 Om Prakash to the effect that Nirmala Devi had committed suicide by sprinkling kerosene oil on herself. Thereafter, PW-15 alongwith other police officials went to the spot and conducted preliminary investigation. On the next day, PW-15 recorded the statement of PW-1 Dinesh Kumar purportedly under Section 154 Cr.P.C. i.e. Ext.PA. In this statement PW-1 stated that deceased Nirmala Devi was his aunt being his father’s younger sister and was married to Beli Ram S/o Naratu Ram about 12-13 years earlier. Out of this wedlock three children, two boys and a girl were born. Beli Ram worked in the army and Nirmala Devi lived with her children in a separate house in the village. According to this witness on 23.09.1994 at about 12 noon he alongwith his brother’s wife Smt. Nirmala Kumari and his cousin Kumari Seema alias Godawari went to the house of deceased Nirmala Devi to invite her for the 10th day Sharad ceremony. He stayed in the house of Nirmala Devi for about one hour. In the complaint it was alleged that Nirmala Devi informed her nephew Dinesh Kumar that her father-in-law accused Naratu Ram had told her that her husband Beli Ram had got married again and had taken his bride to the place of posting. According to this witness Nirmala Devi also informed him that Naratu Ram used to taunt her by stating that only the daughter of the deceased has been born out of the loins of her husband Beli Ram and the two sons were begotten from some 3 unknown person. On this basis Dinesh Kumar suspected some foul play in the death of his aunt. The body of the deceased was sent for postmortem and it was opined that the deceased had died due to shock caused by burns. The police investigated the matter and 72 days after the incident on 6th December, 1994 statement of PW-6 Prem Chand was recorded to the effect that he had witnessed the accused persons beating the deceased and also setting her on fire. On the basis of this statement the case was converted into under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. After completion of investigation challan was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused were charged with having committed the offences detailed here-in-above. After trial they have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal. There are two separate sets of evidence in this case. The first set of evidence is that of eyewitness PW-6 Prem Chand and PW-7 Bimla Devi, who also allegedly witnessed that some altercation took place between the accused Naratu Ram and the deceased on the date of occurrence. As far as the statement of the alleged eye witness PW-6 is concerned, it is more than apparent that this witness is a liar and the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that no reliance can be placed on his evidence. According to this witness on the morning of 24th September, 1994 he had gone to the house of Jia Lal in village Anjhi. From the Obra of Jia Lal he saw accused Naratu Ram abusing the deceased Nirmala Devi. He did not interfere and started walking 4 and had walked barely 15 steps when he saw PW-7 Bimla Devi. Then he inquired from her about the Tuni tree and heard the shrieks of Nirmala Devi coming from her house. At that time, he was standing in the field of Jia Lal and Nirmala Devi was in her own court yard. Accused Naratu Ram and Daya Ram were giving kick-blows to the deceased and accused Shankri and Shiv Devi were also present. Thereafter, accused Naratu Ram and Daya Ram carried Nirmala inside the room. Two-three minutes later Naratu Ram and Daya Ram came out of the room. Shankri and Shiv Devi went inside the room. After 3-4 minutes Naratu Ram and Daya Ram again went inside the room and brought Nirmala Devi out of the room and tried to make her sit in the court yard but she was unable to sit. Thereafter, Daya Ram went inside the room and came out with a white can and sprinkled kerosene oil from head to toe on the person of Nirmala Devi and set her ablaze. He stated that at that time one lady was also cutting grass in the field but she ran away from the place and he could not identify the lady. He kept sitting there for about 15 minutes and thereafter left for his work but did not talk to anybody about the incident and only after about two months disclosed this fact to Jeet Ram PW-3 brother of the deceased Nirmala Devi. Thereafter his statement was recorded by the police on 6.12.1994. Other than the delay of more than two months in informing Jeet Ram PW-3 and the police, which by itself shows that the statement of this witness cannot be relied upon there 5 other are inherent contradictions in his statement. According to him, he met PW-7 when he heard the shrieks and cries of the deceased but Bimla Devi PW-7 is totally silent in this regard. Her statement is only to the effect that she met PW-6 Prem Chand and he inquired from her about a tree. She only heard the accused Naratu Ram asking the deceased to go and lop the branches of the tree situated on the boundary but she refused to do so and then he started abusing Nirmala Devi. According to her at about 9.50 a.m. when she was returning to her house she saw smoke coming out of the house of Nirmala Devi and later when she came to the field for lopping the trees she came to know that Nirmala Devi had died. Whereas Prem Chand stated that he had met Bimla Devi at about 8.30 a.m. Her statement is that she met him at 7.30 a.m. Even if we over look this aspect, it is obvious that according to Bimla she stayed near the place of occurrence till 9.15 a.m and till that time she did not hear any cries and only saw smoke coming out of the house at 9.15 a.m. On the other hand, Prem Chand stated that he stayed there barely for 15 minutes and during this period the deceased was brutally beaten by the accused persons and then set on fire. The statement of PW-7 totally contradicts the version of PW-6 Prem Chand. His statement otherwise also does not appear to be true. Here is a person who allegedly witnessed a gruesome murder but kept silent for two months. He should have in fact intervened but assuming that he was scared he should have run away from 6 the spot. His version that he kept sitting for 15 minutes witnessing the incident without raising any alarm does not inspire confidence. According to him there was another lady cutting grass in the fields. This lady has not been identified but we cannot believe that another lady cutting grass in the field obviously belonging to the same village would have also kept silent about the murder and not told anything to the police. The police admittedly came to the spot on the same day and conducted the investigation. Even the brothers admitted that when they reached the house of Naratu Ram he told them that he had called the police and the cremation would only take place after the police arrived. Interestingly, Prem Chand in his statement clearly stated that Naratu Ram threatened him with dire consequence only after 6.12.1994. He admitted that from the date of occurrence till 6.12.1994 he was never threatened by Naratu Ram. Then why did he keep silent for over two months? It has come in evidence that Nirmala Devi was living separately from her in-laws in her own house alongwith her own children. It also appears that her house is surrounded by trees and is not visible clearly from the place where Prem Chand allegedly saw the incident. Prem Chand stated that he could see the incident because the lower branches of the trees had been lopped, but this is contrary to the statement of PW-7 Bimla Devi and on this aspect of the matter, even the statements of the brothers do not support the version of Prem Chand. PW-7 has 7 clearly admitted that she could not see the house of Nirmala Devi from the place where she was lopping the branches of a Buel tree. She also stated that she did not see any other lady in the nearby fields. Bimla Devi has also admitted that one case was pending before the Executive Magistrate, Kuthar for apprehension of breach of peace in which she appeared as a witness against the accused. Therefore, the statements of these two witnesses cannot be believed. This leaves us with no evidence to the effect that the deceased was murdered. Next comes the question as to whether the deceased was ill-treated and was forced to commit suicide. There is no allegation of ill-treatment except the statement of Dinesh Kumar to the effect that Beli Ram had got married again and Naratu Ram used to taunt the deceased about the person who was the father of her two sons. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are the nephew and two real brothers of the deceased. They admitted that the deceased never sent them a letter/complaint about any maltreatment or ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons. In fact the brothers admitted that when they visited the house of Nirmala Devi they found her to be happy in the company of her husband. It is true that in their statements they had stated that when Nirmala Devi visited her maternal home she complained about ill-treatment but other than making very general statements of her being ill-treated no specific allegation of cruelty has been made out against the accused. In fact, other than Naratu Ram there is no allegation of cruelty against 8 any of the other accused. Even against Naratu Ram the allegation is that he taunted her. This allegation has not been proved and even if it is proved that he taunted her this cannot be said to be cruelty of the type envisaged in Section 498-A IPC. In view of the above discussion, we find that the deceased was not murdered and there is no evidence to prove that she was treated with cruelty as envisaged in Section 498-A. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 24th April, 2010. (Rajiv Sharma) ™ Judge.