IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 265 of 1995 Date of decision: 22.02.2010 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Gita Devi and another. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant-State: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For the respondents: Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This appeal under Section 378 of the code of Criminal Procedure by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 5-P/VII/94(old 10/93) dated 21.6.1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story, in brief, is that accused No.3 Jai Chand was married to the deceased Sudarshana Devi in the year 1977. Jai Chand was working as a taxi driver in Delhi and Sudarshana used to live alongwith her husband Jai Chand at Delhi. Three children, two sons and a daughter were born out of this wed-lock. The daughter unfortunately expired about a year after her birth. The elder son of Jai Chand and Sudarshana was living with his grand parents while the younger son lived at Delhi. Gita Devi accused who was the mother of Jai Chand was not keeping good health and therefore, Jai Chand sent Sudarshana Devi to Langhu to look after his ailing mother. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. Yes. 2 On 12.9.1990 at about 9.00 a.m. Sudarshana started vomiting. She was taken to the hospital at Baijnath by Jai Chand but breathed her last on the way. Tulsi Ram, father of Jai Chand, who is accused No.2, reported the matter to the police. Inquest was got done by the police. The body of Smt. Sudarshana Devi was subjected to post mortem and it was found to be a case of aluminium phosphide poisoning. PW Prabhat Singh, maternal uncle of the Sudarshana Devi made a report to the police on 15.9.1990 i.e. three days after the death that the deceased may have committed suicide due to the harassment and cruelty inflicted upon her by her husband and in-laws. On the basis of this report, F.I.R. No. 83 of 1990 was registered at Police Station Baijnath on 15.9.1990. After investigation, challan was filed and the accused who were the mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of the deceased charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 498-A IPC. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses and the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused after trial. Hence, the present appeal by the State. During the course of the appeal Gita Devi and Jai Chand have expired. The appeal survives only against Tulsi Ram, father-in-law of the deceased and father of accused Jai Chand. Therefore, for the purpose of disposing of the appeal we are only discussing the evidence which connects Tulsi Ram with the alleged offence. Undisputedly, the deceased had committed suicide. It is also not disputed that she was married to Jai Chand in the year 1977. She died 13 years after 3 marriage in the year 1990. Therefore, no presumption of a dowry death arises. From the evidence led by the prosecution itself it is apparent that after Sudarshna started vomiting it was her husband, Jai Chand, who took her to hospital and it is Tulsi Ram, the sole surviving accused, who reported the matter to the police. True it is that some complaint Ext.P-10 was made by the deceased to the Gram Panchayat on 27.3.1988 i.e. more than two years before the incident but the fact remains that the dispute between the parties were settled and compromise arrived at on 31.3.1988 vide document Ext.P-14. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on these documents. There is no act of cruelty attributed to Tulsi Ram after this date. Though there are general allegations of cruelty against the mother-in-law and the father- in-law but there is no specific allegation of any act of cruelty having been committed by the sole surviving accused Tulsi Ram after 31.3.1988 when the matter was compromised. Sudarshana, admittedly lived thereafter firstly with her husband at Delhi and had thereafter come to the village only about six-seven months prior to her death. There is no specific evidence of any act of cruelty attributable to Tulsi Ram during this period of seven months. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the sole surviving accused Tulsi Ram in any manner abetted the suicide of the deceased. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 22nd February, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) ™ Judge.