1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 360 of 1997 Decided on October 1, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Surjan Singh & Others ...Respondents. 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, with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. Justice R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 7.2.1997, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi District at Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 1995, under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, acquitting the alleged accused/respondents. 2. The prosecution case is that Saroj alias Lata was married to Sh. Ram Swaroop, son of Surjan Singh in the month of July, 1986, who was serving in Army. On 9.12.1992, Krishan Chand lodged report No.17 at Police Post, Sandhol, at about 6.15 A.M., that his sister Saroj alias Lata had died in her in-laws' 2 house by taking poison and such death was caused because of maltreatment and torture given by Surjan Singh and due to such maltreatment and torture she committed suicide, thereafter, matter was reported to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.249 of 1992 was registered. 3. After investigation, the accused-respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through their statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., have shown their innocence and denied the prosecution case. 4. PW.1 Dr.B.R. Chauhan has stated that he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of Saroj Devi / deceased and has found that she died of poisoning leading to cardio respiratory failure shock. PW.2 Chint Ram and PW.3 Prem Lal, Head Constable, are the official witnesses and have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution examined PW.5 Jai Chand and PW.6 Sant Ram, to prove the maltreatment and torture by the accused to victim / deceased but both these witnesses have declared hostile. PW.9 Krishan Chand, however, has not divulged that how maltreatment and torture were made to the deceased in past, whereas, Saroj was living separately from the parent-in-laws and no specific complaint was made to Krishan Chand or to the police, however, no medical examination was conducted regarding the torture and maltreatment. 3 5. PW.4 Amar Singh, father of the deceased and PW.8 Brahmi Devi, mother of the deceased, have stated that whenever their daughter was coming to their house, she was telling regarding maltreatment being meted out to her by the accused. However, no specific instance was referred about the maltreatment and torturing and no report was ever lodged regarding the same. 6. The prosecution is relying mainly on the evidence of interested witnesses, which is not inspiring confidence, because none of them had actually seen the victim / deceased taking poison and the prosecution in these facts and circumstances cannot co-relate with any specific instance of torture or maltreatment with the death of the deceased, so that it could be said that because of torturing and maltreatment, abatement was made consequent upon victim / deceased had died. For bringing the accused-respondents within the purview of Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code the ingredients are to be proved, however, the prosecution cannot be said to indicate any chain which may link the act of the accused persons being attributable to the cause of death of the victim / deceased more specifically through the abatement and maltreatment in the hands of the accused-respondents. No specific report was made regarding beating and maltreatment and demand of dowry, as such, the prosecution has not been able to link with any of the conduct or act of any of the family members to the cause of death of the deceased. 4 7. In our our considered view, there is no specific demand of dowry, therefore, ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted at all and for lack of creating link with act and conduct of the accused-respondents, Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the accused and the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Additional Sessions Judge. In these circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 9. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge October 1, 2010 (V.K. Sharma) (Purohit) Judge