IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 139 of 2002 Decided on 18 th June, 2011 ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Krishan Chand & others. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Chitkara, Amicus-Curiae Justice R.B. Misra,J.(Oral) Mr. Anup Chitkara, has been requested to assist this Court as amicus curiae on behalf of the respondents-accused. 2. The present Criminal Appeal has come up for consideration after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 8.9.2001, passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 14 of 1998, acquitting the accused/respondents for the offences under Sections 498-A/306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that Nisha @ Sunita was married to Krishan Chand and two children were born from the wedlock. Nisha @ Sunita was found dead in Nullah and in that respect, a complaint was lodged. She was missing on 19.9.1996 from her matrimonial house and her husband Krishan Chand made a complaint on 21.9.1996 to the local police about her missing. However, on 22.9.1996, Murli Ram, PW-1 lodged FIR making allegations against Krishan Chand that initially, Nisha was kept comfortably in her matrimonial house, however, after about three years of marriage, Sunita @ Nisha and her husband separated and started living separately in her matrimonial house. After three-four months of separation, they came to the house of PW-1 Murli Ram, whenever Sunita had been coming to her parents house, she used to harass by the accused. However, being harassing always, she was subsequently maltreated and beating by Krishan Chand and being harassed, she committed suicide. 4. After investigation, challan was filed in the Court. In order to support its case, prosecution examined as many as 15 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through their statements under Section 313 have Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 5. PW-7 Dr. P.C. Saini conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Sunita on 23.9.1996. On medical examination, no negative marks were found on the neck. PW-7 besides after examining different parts and organs of dead body of Sunita, opined that she died due to drowning and has also opined the distinction between accident and suicide by drowning cannot be made. However, he reiterated in cross-examination that no injury was found on the dead body of Nisha. In the light of such matters, without examination of testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, we find that PW-1 Murli Ram as per prosecution case stated that after 3-4 months of separation in the house of matrimonial, both Nisha and Krishan Chand came to the house of PW-1 and stayed for one day. Krishan Chand left the house of PW-1, leaving Sunita alone. On the next day, PW-1 sent Sunita (deceased) with her younger sister and she returned back next day and told her father PW-1 that in-laws of Sunita are harassing her. On the next day mother, in-law of Sunita came to the house of PW-1 and told that Sunita is missing as such, inquiries were made from neighbours and accordingly, the matter was reported to Pradhan and on third day of missing, PW-1 Murli Ram received a phone call from the Prahdan informing him that dead body of Sunita had been recovered from Kothi Pattan. PW-1 in the cross- examination has stated that after two/three years of marriage of Sunita, she was taken Dehradun by Krishan Chand where they lived for 8/9 months. Krishan Chand was employed there. Thereafter, Krishan Chand left his job because of the death. PW-1 has also stated that accused Krishan Chand had beaten Sunita in his presence when both came in the Village. PW-1 Murli Ram has stated in cross- examination that Sunita had been narrating this fact to neighbourers. It has been further stated by PW-1 that he himself and mother-in-law of Sunita travelled together in the same bus to the matrimonial house of Sunita to trace her. PW-1 has also accepted that Smt. Premi Devi, Mother-in-law of Sunita came early in the morning on 29.9.1996 to his house and found that Sunita was missing. PW-1 has also very categorically accepted that Smt. Premi Devi never interfered with the life of Sunita and Krishan Chand, however, he has not stated about Bablu Ram, S/o the sister of PW-1. PW-1 has further stated in cross- examination that Sunita had been killed with machine by Krishan Chand. 6. PW-2 Smt. Kamla, the mother of Sunita in support of the prosecution case has stated that Sunita used to visit and stay in parental house and told that three accused Krishan Chand, Bablu and Smt. Premi Devi harassed her and beat her and harassment would increase whenever Bablu used to visit the house. Sunita had written a letter Ex. PW-2/A to PW-2 Smt. Kamla and PW-2 was conversant with the hand writing of Sunita which indicates that she made complaint to PW-2 about harassment and beatings. On receipt of such letter, PW-2 learnt that Sunita is being harassed and stated that Sunita is not happy as she is being harassed and beaten by the accused. PW-2 has stated that she suspected that mother-in-law of Sunita had killed her. PW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi has also stated in cross-examination that Sunita and her husband Krishan Chand (accused) had left for Dehradun about 8/9 months. PW-2 further stated in cross examination that she used to wrote letter to Sunita, however, no letter was ever received by her. As stated by PW-2, she did not interfere in the dispute between Krishan Chand and Sunita. PW-2 has further not kept any reference of the letter Ext.PW-2/A. 7. From scrutiny of testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, it becomes clear that both were not living happily. PW-1 Murli Ram has not made any complaint against Bablu Ram, whereas, no specific complaint was made by PW-2 against Bablu Ram. PW-1 has not stated anywhere regarding receiving of any of the letter of Sunita, whereas, PW-2 has claimed that she had been writing several letters and had divulged only Ext. PW-2/A. PW-1 Murli Ram and PW-2 Smt. Kamla had further stated that they have neither interfered in the personal affairs of Krishan Chand and Sunita nor had made any complaint about any of incident of beating and harassment to anyone including Gram Panchayat Pradhan or police or to any of the neighbourer. 8. PW-3, Subhadra, being a neighbourer and former Pradhan of Mahila Mandal in the year 1995-96 residing 100 yards from the house of the parents of Sunita/deceased and in her endeavor to support the prosecution case, stated that one month prior to the death of Sunita, she had come in the House of PW-3 in a function and on asking, she stated that she is being harassed in her in-laws house. As stated by PW-3, Sunita told PW-3 that mother-in- law and husband of the Sunita beats her and whenever Bablu is there, always quarrel in the house. The testimony of PW-3 an independent witness is not reliable as the statement of PW-3 is contrary to the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 as both of them never interfered in the life of Sunita as well as Krishan Chand. As per own testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, when both Sunita and Krishan Chand were living separately in the matrimonial house itself and thereafter had stayed for 8/9 months at Dehradun, in such circumstances, how she was being harassed in her in-laws house is not known. 9. PW-4 Kusuma sister of Sunita has stated that when she went to the matrimonial house of Sunita, Smt. Premi Devi and Krishan Chand were present there and Bablu was also there and they did not behave properly with PW-4. So much so, quarrel took place. The reason of quarrel was not known. Sunita told her that it was a daily routine. PW-4 was expected to take a cup of tea. However, there was no tea leaves in the house. Sunita’s husband and mother-in-law left for the hotel where both were working. PW-4 Kusuma has also not stated anything in cross-examination which could support of resolution that any specific maltreating and beating was made to Sunita consequent upon she was forced to commit suicide. 10. Prosecution case is not that Sunita was killed by the accused, whereas, PW-1 Murli Ram has asserted that Sunita had been killed by the Accused. Whereas, PW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi has suspected that in-law of Sunita had killed her. No injury mark was found on the person of Sunita as such, the evidence of PW-1 and suspicion of PW-2 become baseless. So far killing of Sunita by in- laws or accused is concerned, we have found contents of other prosecution witnesses and none of the prosecution witnesses except PW-3, has come forward to support the prosecution case. So far, maltreatment and beating to Sunita to that extent in absence of corroboration cannot be conclusive to indicate that the death of Sunita was by suicide. No doubt, dead body of Sunita was found after her missing but no act of accused is found attributable or to be treated whereby it could be said that Sunita had committed suicide by maltreating of accused persons. 11. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that suspicion cannot be taken proof of suicide and for that accused persons cannot be held guilty and in our considered view also, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. 12. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/ respondents are hereby discharged. 13. We place on record our words of appreciation to Mr. Anup Chitkara for his assistance of the Court as an amicus curiae. (R.B. Misra) Judge (Sanjay Karol) Judge. 18th June, 2011. (kck)