IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 389 of 1996. Date of decision: 26.4.2010 State of H.P ..Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh & anr ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant: Shri Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent No.1. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J, (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 23.12.1995 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No.13-K/VII/95 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under 2 Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The undisputed facts of the case are that deceased Sumna Devi was married to accused Mohinder Singh in February, 1987. Mansa Devi was the mother of Mohinder Singh, i.e., mother-in-law of the deceased. We have been informed at the Bar that Mansa Devi, respondent No.2 has since expired. In view of this development, the appeal against respondent No.2 stands abated. The appeal is heard qua respondent No.1 only. It is not disputed that Sumna Devi committed suicide on 28th July, 1994, i.e, more than seven years after her marriage. The only question which arises for determination is whether the deceased was compelled to commit suicide on account of cruelty meted out to her by the accused or not. Sumna Devi (deceased) lost her mother when she was barely six years old. Thereafter, she resided with her maternal uncles namely Bhagwan Dass, PW/2 and Manohar Lal, PW/6. It was they who got her married to the accused. According to them, the deceased was 3 kept well for about two years and thereafter, the accused persons started maltreating her. As per the prosecution, four years prior to the incident, the accused had turned the deceased out of their house and thereafter, a meeting of Chaitru Panchayat was convened. The accused persons admitted their fault before the Panchayat and then Sumna Devi went back to her matrimonial house. Neither PW/2 nor PW/6 filed the complaint to the police. This complaint was filed by the father of the deceased, Sant Ram, PW/3. As far as the statement of Sant Ram, PW/3 is concerned, it is more than apparent from the evidence of PW/2 and PW/6 themselves that it was they who looked after Sumna Devi. After her marriage with the accused whenever she had a dispute with her inlaws, she used to go to live with her maternal uncles. She never lived with her father. Her relations with her father were not like that of a normal father and daughter. She confided more in her maternal uncles than in her father. This itself gives rise to the question as to why the father was the complainant 4 when admittedly the deceased Sumna Devi lived for more than 20 years with her maternal uncles. As far as the statements of PW/2 and PW/6 are concerned, no specific allegations of cruelty have been leveled against the accused. There is only a general allegation that two years after the marriage, the deceased was not kept well and the accused persons started beating her. According to PW/2, the cruelty inflicted upon the deceased was that the accused used to beat Sumna Devi without any rhyme and reason. According to PW/6, the accused used to withhold food and clothing to the deceased. They did not make any complaint about the accused beating the deceased. No specific instances of either the beating or the withholding of the food have been given. This brings us to the next question as to what happened before the Panchayat. Admittedly, a Panchayat was convened. According to PW/2, this Panchayat was convened at the instance of PW/2 and PW/6. The Members of Chaitru Panchayat had attended the said meeting including Sher Singh, Sant Ram, Lal 5 Singh, Manohar Lal, Hari Singh etc. PW/2 however, could not recognize the Members of the Chaitru Panchayat. He also admitted that no written documents were prepared when the Panchayat took place. Sher Singh appeared in the witness box as PW/4 and did not support the prosecution version. According to him, in the Panchayat, PW/2 Bhagwan Dass, PW/3 Sant Ram, Lal Singh and he himself had participated. This is contrary to the statement of PW/2 and PW/6 who have named a number of other persons also. PW/5 Gurdev Singh, a Member of the Gram Panchayat, Nandrool stated that he never participated in such a Panchayat. He also stated that the deceased had been complaining about the maltreatment meted out to her by her inlaws without giving any specific instances of such maltreatment. PW/7 Hari Singh, in whose presence, the Panchayat was alleged to have been convened did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. According to him, Sumna Devi had stated before the Panchayat that she was prepared to go with the accused 6 persons and the matter was settled. Nothing more was done in the Panchayat. The matrimonial house of Sumna Devi is at a distance of two furlongs from his house. He stated that he is a Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and that Sumna Devi never complained to him about any maltreatment meted out to her by the accused persons. The conduct of some of the witnesses also does not support the prosecution case. As stated above, though it was PW/2 and PW/6 who brought up the deceased like a daughter, they did not lodge any complaint with the police. In fact, PW/2 stated that after the death of Sumna Devi, he did not even go to her matrimonial house to meet her two sons. This itself is not normal behaviour. All the prosecution witnesses have admitted that in their presence, the accused persons had never ill-treated the deceased. What to talk about beating the deceased in their presence, the accused persons did not even raise their voice against the deceased. PW/3, father of the deceased admitted that in fact, the deceased had not been behaving well for sometime and he suspected that she was under the spell 7 of some spirits. This also shows that even according to PW/3, his daughter was not totally normal. In view of above discussion, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons are guilty of treating the deceased with cruelty envisaged under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 26th April, 2010 (Rajiv Sharma) (m) Judge