IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No.572 of 2001 alongwith Cr. A. 573 of 2001 & 574 of 2001. Judgment reserved on:26.8.2008. Dated of Decision: September 02,2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Cr.A. No.572 of 2001.. Ram Ditta. …. Appellant. Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Cr.A. No.573 of 2001.. Kamla Devi. …. Appellant. Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Cr.A. No.574 of 2001.. Meena Devi. …. Appellant. Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellants : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. Surinder Singh,J: The above appeals have arisen from the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No.5 of 1999, decided on 6.9.2001, whereby each the Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one year each under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the appellants were also sentenced under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Raj Kumar is the son of appellants Ram Ditta and Kamla Devi. He was married to deceased Pawna Devi on 20.10.1996. Pawna Devi committed suicide by consuming poison on 9.10.1997, i.e. within seven years from their marriage. Appellant Meena Devi is the wife of Hem Raj, an elder brother of Raj Kumar. After the marriage, the deceased Pawna Devi resided in her matrimonial house in village Tasli, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur. Her husband Raj Kumar was running a shop at Ner Chowk in district Mandi. It is alleged that after four months of her marriage with Raj Kumar, all appellants started humiliating and harassing the deceased on the ground that her parents had provided the dowry articles of inferior quality. The deceased complained to her parents but her parents sympathized that since her husband and his elder brother Hem Ram were not party to it, everything would improve with the passing of time. It is also the case of the prosecution that Raj Kumar, her husband used to tell her that he would persuade the appellants to behave properly. On 19.8.2007, the deceased gave the birth to a dead child in the house of her parents. On 3.10.1997, Ram Ditta appellant took - 3 - the deceased to his house to attend a religious function of “Gugga Dera”. On 4.10.1997, Nikka Ram, father of the deceased also went to attend the said religious function and stayed there for the night. On 5.10.1997, appellant Meena Devi brought morning tea to Nikka Ram, Pawna Devi also came with her and started weeping in front of her father saying that she was being harassed by the appellants. Raj Kumar the husband of the deceased consoled her that he would return from Ner Chowk on 15.10.1997 and thereafter he would take and keep the deceased with him. On 9.10.1997, Pawna Devi committed suicide by consuming the poison. She was taken to the Government Hospital Kuthera. The parents of the deceased were informed. Shri Nikka Ram, her father went to the hospital. He saw his daughter Pawna Devi in a critical condition. She was unable to speak and she at that time could hardly utter “Chugli” and “Jehar”, thereafter she died on the same day. PW1 Nikka Ram lodged the FIR on the same day against the appellants under the aforesaid sections. The police visited the spot, recorded the statements of the witnesses, got the autopsy of the dead body done and after completing the challan, it was presented in the court for trial of the accused persons. The appellants were charged under the aforesaid sections. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined its witnesses and the appellants were also examined under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon them. The appellants were called upon to enter into their defence. They produced DW1 Raj Kumar, the husband of the deceased. At the end - 4 - of the trial, while relying upon the prosecution evidence, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. The appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them by filing the separate appeals, on the grounds that the deceased was upset after bearing the dead child and had developed the suicidal tendencies. Most of the time, either she remained in the house of her parents or with her husband and at no point of time, the appellants have caused any harassment and cruelty to the deceased. It is also contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, their conviction and sentence were wrong and illegal. Shri Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that if the evidence of the prosecution is looked into in the right perspective, the involvement of the appellants would be totally ruled out. He further argued that appellant Ram Ditta married his son Shri Hem Raj to Meena appellant, without accepting anything in dowry and it was a temple marriage and in the instant case, there was no question of taking dowry and then causing any harassment saying that the dowry articles were of inferior quality. He further argued that Ram Ditta and his wife married his five daughters without giving any dowry in the marriage and they are well settled at their respective places. It is also argued that the statements made by the parents of the deceased were afterthought, to implicate the appellants because of her unnatural death. It is further argued that the utterance alleged to have been made by the deceased like “Chugli” and “Jehar” in the hospital are also not indicative of the fact that the appellants were involved in the said incident. He also pointed out that the doctor, who had initially examined the deceased, - 5 - was not examined in the court in order to know whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make any statement. Contra, Shri J.S.Guleria, learned Law Officer has vehemently argued that the evidence on record proves the case against the appellants and they were rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have reappraised the evidence on record to find out the truthfulness in the prosecution case. Shri Nikka Ram, the father of the deceased is the maker of the FIR. Vide his statement Ex.PA, he has stated that after the marriage of the deceased with Raj Kumar, she visited his place with her husband and did not make any complaint for about six months. However, about 5/6 months prior to her death, the appellants started maltreating her by taking lot of work from her and they had also been taunting her that inferior quality items were provided by her parents in dowry. As and when she used to complain, he alongwith his wife had been persuading her to return to the matrimonial home as there was positive sign that the Raj Kumar and his elder brother Hem Raj did not torture her. He also stated that on 19.8.1997, she gave birth to a dead female child in the parental house and thereafter she was taken back on 3.10.1997 by her father-in-law Ram Ditta and he also visited their place on 4.10.1997 to attend the religious function and while returning back, the deceased had informed him that the appellants were passing taunts and she was being harassed by them. As PW1, while corroborating the above version, Shri Nikka Ram stated that on 5.10.1997 in the morning, Meena Devi appellant - 6 - alongwith Pawna Devi brought tea to him and Pawna had brought a container of water. At that time, she was weeping and told him that she was being harassed by the appellants and thereafter he came back to his house, however, Raj Kumar told to take her alongwith him on his return from Ner Chowk on 15.10.1997, but she took poison on 9.10.1997. When he reached the hospital, she could only utter two words “chugli” and “jehar” and thereafter she died. Even he stated that the deceased had died on account of poison, which was either administered to her or she had taken of her own and further made allegations that Meena Devi used to harass and maltreat her. In cross-examination, he expressed his ignorance if the deceased remained with her husband at Ner Chowk from 1.11.1996 to 8.12.1996 and that on 8.12.1996, she came to the parental house where she remained for two days and also that thereafter she remained with her husband at Ner Chowk upto 5.2.1.997. He also did not remember if she lived in her village house w.e.f. 5.2.1997 to 1.4.1997, but he denied that she remained for about 20 days in his house in the month of April, 1997. He also did not remember, if the deceased stayed at Ner Chowk w.e.f. 21.4.1997 to 26.6.1997 with her husband and thereafter from 26.6.1997 to 15.7.1997 in her village. He denied that the deceased remained in his house w.e.f. 15.7.1997 to 3.10.1997, but volunteered that she had come to his house on 8.8.1997 and remained till 3.10.1997 and stated that for the first time, she revealed about the alleged harassment after about 4-5 months of her marriage and he did not make any complaint to any of the member and President of the Panchayat. He admitted that the marriage of Meena Devi appellant took place in a temple - 7 - and further that the appellant Ram Ditta married his five daughters and all are residing at their matrimonial houses. He also stated that there are about 10 houses in the vicinity of the appellants. According to him, he had sent back Pawna Devi deceased to her house because her husband was having good relations with her. He has admitted to have not disclosed to the police that when Meena Devi came with his daughter and brought him tea in the morning his daughter told that she was being harassed by the appellants. According to him he did not tell this fact while reporting the matter to the police because he was under a shock. However, he stated that the deceased was not harassed in his presence. PW2 his wife Brahmi Devi has also stated that after about six months of her marriage, the deceased was being maltreated and harassed for want of better quality of clothes. She further stated that on 8.8.1997, Pawna Kumari came to their house alongwith Meena Devi appellant, during the engagement ceremony of her son. She was not having more than one suit. On being asked, she told her that the clothes and ornaments were not provided to her by the appellants, but in the cross-examination, she has stated that the clothes were brought by her husband subsequently. She further stated that her husband Nikka Ram also informed her that Pawna was being harassed in the house of her inlaws. PW5 Gian Chand, a neighbour is a driver at Delhi. He visited his native place village Tasli, in the month of August during the annual leave. He heard the cries of appellant Meena and her mother-in-law. When he visited them, they told that Pawna got a fit. Pawna was brought to the road on a palanquin. On enquiry from Pawna Devi, by him she told that she had consumed poison by - 8 - mistake and she be saved. This witness was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court but nothing material could be extracted. He stated that the Basant Singh, Roop Lal and few other persons were there when Pawna Kumari stated that she took the poison by mistake. He further stated that during the “Guga Dera” function, Pawna Devi had returned to her matrimonial house and the said function was attended by about 200 persons. PW7 SI Anjani Kumar ion the cross-examination has stated that the doctor had talked to the deceased before her death and he had also recorded the statement of the doctor. On the critical examination and close scrutiny of the above evidence, it is admitted that Pawna Devi had died by consuming the poison. The doctor who had initially medically examined Pawna Kumari was not produced and examined before the court in order to know as to what was her condition when she was brought to the hospital, whether she was able to make any statement and what was the conversation which took place between her and the Doctor as stated by the Investigating Officer whether she had made any statement to him with respect to consuming of the poison or any other relevant fact. The said Doctor was a material witness who could have afforded a corroboration to the case of prosecution. Failing to examine him an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. Further the testimonies of the parents of the deceased do not inspire confidence as none of them made any attempt to either report the matter to the police or the members or Pradhan of the Panchayat about the alleged harassment. They also did not take any near relative to resolve the matter. Further the - 9 - conduct of father Nikka Ram is not worthy of inspiring confidence in as much as he was not expected to return to his house without discussing and settling the matter with the father-in-law of the deceased in the presence of her husband. None of the persons, who were present during the function of “Gugga Dera” came forward to corroborate the prosecution story of alleged harassment. It is quite unnatural that Ram Ditta would have brought his daughter in law to attend the religious function to harass her. Further the statement of PW5 Gian Chand discussed above also causes a dent in the prosecution version. The appellants have been able to probablise their defence by examining DW1 Raj Kumar, husband of the deceased. He denied any maltreatment or harassment in his house as alleged. According to him his father brought Pawna Devi to his house to attend the religious function where many persons were present during the night including the parents of the deceased. Next morning, he alongwith Pawna Kumari and her parents had taken tea together and she did not make any complaint to him, which falsify the statement of PW1 Nikka Ram. He also stated that he did not take her alongwith him to Ner Chowk because of the religious ceremony in the house of his sister. He revealed that his wife Pawna Kumari was under depression after the delivery of a dead child and she did not want another child. The above facts, omissions and contradictions make the prosecution story highly suspect. Therefore, In these circumstances, in my opinion the implicit reliance cannot be placed on the statements of the prosecution witnesses who are none else than her parents for the reasons stated above, for sustaining the conviction of the appellants. Thus, a substantial - 10 - doubt is created in the authenticity of the prosecution case, the benefit of which goes to the accused-appellants. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the all convict-appellants are allowed. Consequently, judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court are set-aside and the appellants are acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records. September 02,2008. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.