IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.240 of 1994 Decided on: May 21, 2008. State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Hari Dutt …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.M. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. A.G. For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has challenged the judgment of acquittal delivered by the trial Court, in a case, under Section 306 IPC, which was instituted against the respondent by the police. 2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case is like this. Deceased Daya Devi was married to respondent about 15-16 years prior to her death. Five-six years before her death, father of the respondent died. After his death, the respondent took to excessive liquor drinking. He did not have enough money to finance his habit of excessive drinking. So, he started selling household articles like utensils etc. He would even sell the wild forest produce, like Anardana (pomegranate seeds) collected by the deceased, to satisfy his urge for liquor. Often he would give beating to the deceased, when she would not part with money or object to sale of household articles. Several times she went alongwith her five children to her parents’ place and Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… complained to them about the ill-treatment and the torture at the hands of the respondent. Once with the intervention of PW-8 Sohan Lal, Vice President of the Gram Panchayat, there had been a settlement and the respondent agreed to the division of his house and landed property between himself and the deceased. The deceased alongwith her children then started living in a separate portion of house provided to her. Despite such separation, the respondent would often give her beatings. Every time, after turning the deceased out of the matrimonial home, he would follow her to her parents’ place, after sometime, and assure deceased’s mother that in future he would not be ill-treating her. Once he gave a written undertaking and assurance to the aforesaid effect. The same is Ext. PA. 3. On 11.6.1990, the deceased went to her parents’ place. Respondent followed her on 16.6.1990 and brought her back after having a quarrel with the mother of the deceased. On 18.6.1990, the deceased consumed some insecticide. She was rushed to District Hospital at Solan. There she died the same day. PW-1 Jagdish Chand, a brother of the deceased, lodged report at Police Post, City Solan, on 19.6.1990. The report was entered in the Rojnamcha. Its copy is Ext. PB. Since the place where the deceased consumed insecticide fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Pachhad, a copy of report Ext. PB was sent to the SHO of the said Police Station. The said SHO visited the village where insecticide was consumed, on the next following day, i.e. 20.6.1990 and there he recorded another statement of PW-1 Jagdish Chand, under Section 154 Cr. P.C., which is Ext. PC. Formal FIR Ext. PN was recorded on the basis of the aforesaid statement Ext. PC. Inquest was conducted. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination. No apparent injury was noticed. Viscera was …3… sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide report Ext. PJ, found insecticide in all pieces of the organs forming viscera. 4. During the course of investigation, besides PW-1 Jagdish Chand, another brother of the deceased, named PW-3 Mam Chand; a sister of the deceased PW-2 Kanta Devi; a cousin of the deceased PW- 6 Lajju Ram; an uncle of the respondent PW-4 Kinnaria Ram and PW-8 Sohan Lal, Vice President of the Gram Panchayat, told that the respondent used to ill-treat the deceased. 5. Trial Court charged the respondent with an offence, under Section 306 IPC and put him on trial, when he pleaded not guilty. Respondent denied that he used to give beatings to the deceased or ill- treat her and thereby created a situation leaving the deceased with no option, but to commit suicide. 6. Trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not prove the charge and that writing Ext. PA, allegedly executed by the respondent, undertaking thereby not to give any beating to the deceased, in future, had been fabricated during the course of investigation of the case. 7. We have gone through the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Initially the matter was reported to the police on 19.6.1990, i.e. a day after the death of Daya Devi. This report was lodged by PW-1 Jagdish Chand, a brother of the deceased. Its copy is Ext. PB. There is no mention of physical torture of the deceased by the respondent in this report, though it is mentioned that the respondent used to harass the deceased and that once the deceased had reported the matter to the Panchayat. It was also reported that about 5-6 days, prior to her death, the deceased had visited her parents and on …4… 16.6.1990, the respondent took her back to the matrimonial home, after having quarrelled with the mother of the deceased. In fact, it is this report which is to be termed as the First Information Report and not the statement Ext. PC, which was recorded by Vijay Nand, SHO, Police Station, Pachhad a day later. It is true that in Ext. PC there is mention of the respondent being given to excessive drinking and giving beating to the deceased, whenever she objected to his wasting money and selling household articles to satisfy his urge for liquor, but as already noticed, this statement is not the First Information Report and, therefore, it cannot be used for any purpose, except for contradicting the witness, under Section 162 Cr. P.C. 9. Oral evidence regarding the alleged beating of the deceased by the respondent, does not prove the charge, because none of the witnesses of the alleged beating, namely PW-1 Jagdish Chand, a brother of the deceased, PW-2 Kanta Devi, a sister of the deceased, PW-3 Mam Chand, another brother of the deceased, PW-4 Kinnauria Ram, an uncle of the respondent and PW-8 Sohan Lal, vice President of the Gram Panchayat, has testified that the deceased was ever given beatings by the respondent in their presence. PW-6 Lajju Ram though stated that once he had seen the respondent giving beating to the deceased, but he does not give the time gap between the alleged beatings and the death of Daya Devi. This statement is too general to lead to a safe inference, leave alone conclusion, that there is any nexus between the alleged beatings and the consumption of fatal dose of insecticide by the deceased. 10. Writing Ext.PA, per which the respondent allegedly gave assurance not to give beatings to the deceased, in future, appears to have been fabricated during the investigation of the case. There are several reasons for our holding so. The first and foremost reason is …5… that there is no mention of this writing in the earliest report Ext. PB or even in Ext. PC. Secondly, we find that the oral evidence with regard to the time of the execution of this document is contradictory. According to PW-1 Jagdish Chand and PW-3 Mam Chand, this writing was executed two-three months prior to the death of Daya Devi, but the writing itself purports to have been executed on 5.11.1989, that is to say, more than seven months prior to the said event. Again, these two witnesses have stated that this writing was prepared within a few days of the division of the house and the landed property of the respondent between the respondent and the deceased, but it has specifically been stated by PW-8 Sohan Lal, Vice President, who got the division done between the deceased and the respondent, that it took place about 2 ½ years prior to the commission of suicide by the deceased and that after the said division, no complaint had been received by the Panchayat from the deceased that the respondent ill-treated or harassed her. 11. Now, if the writing was prepared only a few days after the division of the property, then its date could not have been 5th November, 1989, but much prior to that and the year might be 1988 or 1987. In Ext. PC also, the year of division of the property is mentioned as 1988. This variation about the date or time when this writing was prepared itself creates a doubt about its authenticity. 12. Writing Ext. PA was allegedly produced to the police by Sundri Devi, the mother of the deceased, whom the prosecution did not examine as its witness. We thought of calling her and examining her as a Court witness, but a writing of Panchayat has been produced before us, indicating that she has died in the year 2004. 13. It has come in the evidence that after the delivery of the youngest child, the deceased had developed some gynae problem for which she was getting treatment from some Homeopath, to whom her …6… mother had been taking her. The ailment, it appears, was of serious nature and, therefore, the possibility of the deceased having taken the extreme step because of such ailment cannot be ruled out. Had the alleged ill-treatment of the deceased, by the respondent, been the cause of her having taken the extreme step, she could have done so much earlier, because according to PW-1 Jagdish Chand and PW-3 Mam Chand, the two brothers and PW-3 Kanta Devi, the sister of the deceased, the respondent had been ill-treating and subjecting the deceased to torture, at least for the last 5-6 years. 14. In view of the above stated position, we are of the view that the finding of the trial Court does not call for interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J. May 21, 2008, (ss) ( Surinder Singh ), J.