IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.460 of 2009 Decided on: 17th June, 2009 State of H.P …..petitioner. VERSUS Hari Ram & others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: S/Sh.R.K,Bawa, Advocate General and Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the Respondents: Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgement of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu in Sessions Trial No.49/06/16/08 decided on 21.1.2009 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of having committed 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the deceased Surekha Devi was married to accused Hari Ram. The other accused are relatives of Hari Ram. The complaint was lodged by PW/1 Dalbir Singh who is the brother of the deceased. According to him, Surekha had married Hari Ram about one and a half years back. On 28.4.2004 the complainant received telephonic information that his sister is missing and he accordingly went to the village of the accused. He was informed by the accused Hari Ram that he and his family members had searched for Surekha but could not find her. Then Dalbir Singh lodged a report on the basis of which an FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer received information regarding the fact that one dead body was found (which was later identified to be that of Surekha) lying in Sarwari Nullah near Shalang. The dead body was subjected to post mortem but the cause of death could not be ascertained since the body was in a highly de-composed state. On the basis of this investigation, a case was registered against the respondents. 3. One of the primary ingredients for proving the commission of an offence under Section 306 is that the deceased should have committed suicide. Unless it is proved that the deceased committed suicide, no prosecution under Section 306 would lie. In the present case, the doctor who appeared as PW/6 has clearly stated that the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. There is no material on record whatsoever to show that the deceased has committed suicide. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of this Section itself. 4. Even otherwise the learned Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that there is nothing on record to show that the deceased was mal-treated by her in-laws. There are contradictions in the statements of three witnesses, i.e, brother, brother-in-law and cousin of the deceased. Whereas the brother has stated that deceased had been mal-treated by her in-laws due to the fact that she had not brought sufficient dowry, the other two witnesses have not supported this version and have not stated that the dowry was the cause of discord. There is no material on record to show that deceased was subjected to mal-treatment which would have forced her to commit suicide. 5. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. (Surinder Singh) 17th June, 2009 Judge (m)