1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 16/2002 Decided on: May 26, 2011. State of HP …Appellant. VERSUS Ranjit Singh ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG For the respondent: Mr. Himat Negi, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, Judge (Oral) For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 23.11.1998, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 18.9.2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala in Session Case No. 17-K/99, titled as State of HP Vs. Ranjit Singh, accused stands acquitted of the charged offence. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Santosh Kumari daughter of Puran Chand (PW-4) and niece of 2 Badri Parshad (PW-7) was married to accused Ranjit Singh. From the wed-lock, four children were born. Accused used to maltreat, harass and subject Santosh Kumari to cruelty. He would make dowry demands. Due to his atrocities, on 23.11.1998 Santosh Kumari consumed poison. She was taken to the Community Health Centre, where she was medically examined by Dr. Mohan Singh (PW-1) and given medical treatment. Police was telephonically informed by the doctor. SI Balbir Singh (PW-12) reached the Health Centre and recorded rupat No. 15 (Ex PW 12/A). He moved an application (Ex PW- 1/B) for recording the statement of Santosh Kumari, who in the presence of the doctor, made statement (Ex PW- 1/C) which was recorded by PW-12. Santosh Kumari did not respond to medical treatment and finally expired on 24.11.1998 in the hospital. Inquest report was prepared by the Police and post mortem conducted by doctor D.P. Swami (PW-2). The body was then cremated. On 26.11.1998, PW-4 reported the matter to the police vide rupat (Ex PW-4/A), on the basis of which FIR (Ex PW-11/A) No. 177/98 dated 26.11.1998, under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC was registered with Police Station, Shahpur. The matter was investigated by ASI Gulzari Lal (PW-13). As per 3 postmortem report (Ex PW-2/A), Santosh Kumari died of asphyxia due to ingestion of poison’. Statements of relevant witnesses were recorded and with the completion of the investigation, challan was presented in the trial court. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C recorded. 5. There are certain undisputed facts, which have emerged from the record. Santosh Kumari was married to accused Ranjit Singh and from the said wedlock, four children were born. The fact that Santosh Kumari consumed poisonous tablets on 23.11.1998 also cannot be disputed. She died due to poisoning is also not in dispute. Marriage took place 12- 13 years prior to the incident and date of death, i.e. 23/ 24.11.1998 is also not in dispute. 6. In order to prove the charge under section 306 IPC, prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing 4 and reliable material that the accused had abetted in the commission of crime, i.e. suicide. 7. Ex PW-1/C is the statement made by deceased herself which was recorded by PW-12 in the presence of doctor PW-1. In fact, version of these witnesses clearly establish the fact that at the relevant time, she was mentally fit, her statement was voluntary in nature and without any threat, coercion or fear. In no uncertain terms, deceased has stated that she was having a headache and by mistake she took the poisonous tables thinking them to be a medicine. At that time, her husband was not at home. Having consumed the tablet, she felt giddiness and realized her mistake. After some time, she was taken to the hospital by her husband for treatment. None was responsible for this act of hers. 8. PW-1, in no uncertain terms, has stated that Ex PW-1/C was recorded when deceased was conscious. Significantly, none of the prosecution witnesses, including the relatives who had the chance of meeting and talking with the deceased, on the way to and in the hospital, have stated that the deceased had told them that she had consumed poison due to any of the 5 acts attributable to her husband. Neither in the complaint (Ex PW-4/A) nor in the court, father of the deceased ( PW-4) has made mention about this fact. Even Pradhan Ramesh (PW-5) is conspicuously silent on this aspect. 9. According to PW-1 & PW-5 complaint made by the deceased with regard to cruelty, harassment and dowry demands of the accused was presented to PW-5. But this was 8-10 months prior to this incident. None has deposed that within this period deceased was subjected to harassment. Thus, the case of the prosecution with regard to an offence under Section 306 IPC is clearly not made out. There was no immediate provocation or cause for the deceased to have committed suicide. Events of harassment, if any, pertained to past. 10. With regard to the charge for an offence under section 498-A, version of Sh. Puran Singh (PW-4), Sh. Ramesh Rana (PW-5) and Sh. Badri Parshad (PW-7) needs to be examined. According to PW-4, oral complaints about the atrocities committed by the accused were lodged with the Pradhan, who reported the matter to the police. Accused and deceased were 6 summoned to the police station, where the accused promised to mend his ways. Dowry demands were frequently made by the accused and in fact on one occasion Rs. 3000/- was also paid by PW-7. To this extent, version of PW-4 stands supported by PW-5 and PW-7. However, having carefully examined and scrutinized the depositions of these witnesses, we find their testimony to be doubtful, unconvincing and the witnesses to be unreliable. 11. According to PW-4, oral complaints were made with the Pradhan, according to whom complaint was in writing. Photocopy of the same is mark ‘A’. This document, in law, cannot be looked into for not having been proved in accordance with law. In any event, Pradhan admits that in the Panchyat, register is maintained for entering the complaints/applications received from various persons, which admittedly was not handed over to the police during the course of investigation. Now why did the Pradhan keep such an important and material piece of evidence with himself and not hand it over to the police, has not been explained. In fact, PW-5 contradicts himself by deposing that he did not report the matter to the police. 7 Veracity of his statement is rendered doubtful by his conduct and contradictory version. Even, according to PW-4, no written complaint was lodged with any authority. In court, this witness has made several improvements from his earlier statement (Ex PW-4/A), recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.PC, with which he was confronted with. His version that the matter of maltreatment was reported to the Pradhan and at police post, Kotla and that the accused made written demands, which letters were removed by the accused, does not find mention in his statement. Further apart from bald assertions, there is nothing on record to substantiate the factum of dowry demand, more specifically with regard to time, place, manner and the persons before whom the same was made. In fact PW-4 admits that accused used to look after the deceased in every respect and that they were happily living a peaceful life. Version of PW-4 & PW-5 does not inspire confidence. Thus, the version of PW-4 with regard to dowry demand, harassment and cruelty, cannot be said to be fully established and proved. PW-7 has simply corroborated the version of PW-4. In this background, it cannot be said that prosecution was able to 8 establish/prove by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material the fact that the accused committed the charged offence. 12. There is yet another reason why the version of material relevant witnesses is rendered doubtful. According to PW-5, before the deceased was taken to the hospital, accused visited him at his house and informed him about the incident. PW-5 and PW-7 were present in the hospital and had occasion to separately meet and interact with their daughter. Yet they did not report the matter to the police, who admittedly had arrived in the hospital prior to the death of the deceased. Death took place on 24.11.1998 and yet the matter was reported to the police only on 26.11.1998. Thus, there is delay in lodging the FIR, which in the instant case, has not been sufficiently explained by the accused. 13. Thus, we find that prosecution case cannot be said to have been established/proved beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable evidence. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down in Mohammed Ankoos & others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 9 Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the person has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. ( R.B.Misra), J. (Sanjay Karol), J. 26th May, 2011(sl)