IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 263 of 1994 Decided on: July 1, 2008. State of HP …Appellant Versus Pohu Ram and another …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. For the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) This appeal is directed by the State against the judgment of Sessions Court, whereby respondents Pohu Ram and Prem Chand, father-in-law and husband, respectively, of deceased Meena Kumari, have been acquitted of the charge, under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly subjecting her to cruelty and forcing her to commit suicide. 2. Prosecution version may be summed up thus. Deceased Meena Kumari was the daughter of PW-1 Ajudhia Lal and PW-2 Raj Kumari. She was married to respondent Prem Chand, in the month of March, 1998. Her parents hailed from a village in the plains of Punjab, near Anandpur Sahib in Ropar Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… District. Respondents have their place in hilly terrain where the life is so tough that everything, including fuel wood, water and other necessities of life, is required to be carried by the people to their household from considerable distance, climbing up and down hills. After the marriage, deceased delivered a female child, who died five-six months later. 3. On 8.6.1990 PW-1 Ajudhia Lal was informed by two residents of the village of the respondents that deceased had died by consuming some poisonous substance. He went to the place of the respondents and found his daughter Meena Kumari lying dead. A police official of ASI rank, namely Birbal Ram, was already there. Ajudhia Lal made statement to him, under section 154 Cr. P.C, which is Ext. PA. The said statement was sent to Police Station for formal registration of the case. Inquest was conducted. No external injury or mark of violence was noticed on the dead body. It was sent to District Hospital at Bilaspur where postmortem examination was conducted by PW-11 Dr. M.S. Zutshi. He also did not notice any mark of injury or violence on the dead body. Viscera was sent to Chemical Examiner, who reported vide Ext. PX that it contained aluminium phosphide. 4. Prosecution examined, besides the parents of the deceased, PW-3 Satanjeev, a neighbour of the parents of the deceased and two ladies, namely PW-4 Smt. Sandesh and PW-5 Smt. Savita Devi, living in the neighbourhood of the respondents, who allegedly told the police, during investigation, and also made statements before a Magistrate, under Section 164 Cr. P. C. to the effect that the deceased used to complain …3… to them that her father-in-law made sexual advances towards her and on her objecting to such advances, he had started harassing her. 5. PW-1 Ajudhia Lal, in his report Ext. PA to the police, stated that once Meena Kumari had complained to him and her mother that respondent Pohu Ram had been making sexual advances towards her and on her refusal to oblige him with regard to his sexual desire, he started harassing her. He also reported that both the respondents used to harass the deceased with a view to pressurizing her to bring cash from him (PW-1 Ajudhia Lal) and that first in the month of March, 1990, his daughter approached him for a sum of Rs.5000/-, which he paid and again she approached him in the month of April, 1990, for another sum of Rs.5000/-, which too was paid by him and again in May, 1990, she approached him for paying a sum of Rs.20,000/-, but this time he paid nothing to her. 6. Respondents took the plea that the deceased, being not used to hard and tough life of hilly area, could not adjust at their place and probably because of this reason she took her life. 7. Trial Court disbelieved the prosecution version and held that the defence plea is probabilized by prosecution own evidence. Consequently, the respondents have been acquitted. 8. We have been taken through the record by the learned Additional Advocate General. Also, we have heard the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel representing the respondents. …4… 9. PW-1 Ajudhia Lal, while in the witness box, stated that about two months, after the marriage, Pohu Ram came to his house and demanded Rs.10,000/- in lieu of refrigerator, which was not given at the time of marriage and that he paid him a sum of Rs.7000/-. PW-2 Raj Kumari, mother of the deceased, also testified this fact. However, the fact does not find mention in the statement Ext. PA, under Section 154 Cr. P.C., which is otherwise a detailed one, containing many details regarding demand of money on different occasions. Therefore, the statement to this extent can be taken to be an improvement. In any case, it is not the case of the prosecution nor has it been testified either by PW-1 Ajudhia Lal or PW-2 Smt. Raj Kumari that the deceased was ever harassed by the two respondents, on account of non-payment of money equivalent to the value of refrigerator. Therefore, this part of the testimony of the parents of the deceased is of little avail to the prosecution. 10. As regards payment of two amounts of Rs.5000/-, in March and April, 1990, the respondents do not seriously deny the testimony of PW-1 Ajudhia Lal and PW-2 Smt. Raj Kumari. Their plea is that the money was taken as a loan, in connection with construction of a house, which they started in March, 1990. Even though PW-1 Ajudhia Lal stated that the two amounts of Rs.5000/-, on different occasions, were paid to the deceased, when she came to demand the same, PW-2 Raj Kumari stated that for the first time Meena Kumari came to take the amount of Rs.5000/- and second time respondent Prem Chand himself came and the money was paid to him. …5… Both PW-1 Ajudhia Lal and PW-2 Raj Kumari have stated that when a sum of Rs.20,000/- was demanded, they paid nothing to the deceased, but told her that they would be paying the money after a month. The facts that once respondent Prem Chand himself went to get the money from PW-1 Ajudhia Lal and second time when the deceased went to get another sum of Rs.20,000/-, she was told that it will be paid after a month, give an impression that the money was taken or sought to be taken not on account of dowry demand, but by way of loan or at the most as financial help for construction of house and furnishing the same. 11. PW-3 Satanjeev, a neighbour of PW-1 Ajudhia Lal, stated that once the deceased met him and told that her parents had already paid Rs.5000/- twice to the respondents, but they were again demanding Rs.20,000/-, which her parents were not in a position to pay and because of this, the respondents had been harassing her. The statement on the face of it is unbelievable, because PW-1 Ajudhia Lal and PW-2 Raj Kumari, the father and the mother, respectively, of the deceased, nowhere stated that they were not in a position to pay the said amount nor did they refuse to pay that amount of money, but only told the deceased that they would be paying the money a month later. Their testimony is contrary to what PW-3 Satanjeev has stated. 12. Allegation of harassment, on account of demand of money, is disproved by the testimony of PW-2 Raj Kumari, the mother of the deceased, who has admitted in her cross- …6… examination that the deceased and respondent Prem Chand never had any quarrel. 13. Turning to the allegation of alleged sexual advances by Pohu Ram, not only that the evidence led by the prosecution is contradictory, but also improbable. Respondent Pohu Ram was aged about 75 years, at the time when the incident took place. He was 73 years old when the marriage of the deceased with respondent Prem Chand took place. Age of Pohu Ram is recorded to be 75 years at the time of his arrest in police records. Now, if he was so old at the time when the marriage of the deceased with respondent Prem Chand took place, it is quite unnatural that he would have made sexual advances towards the deceased. 14. Again, in FIR Ext. PA with which PW-1 Ajudhia Lal was duly confronted, it is recorded that the deceased made disclosure of the aforesaid alleged sexual advances by respondent Pohu Ram to his wife and his wife in turn informed him, but while in the witness box as PW-1 he stated that disclosure was made to him and his wife both at the same time, when they were together. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 Ajudhia Lal is contradicted by the contents of statement Ext. PA with which he was confronted by the defence side. His statement regarding allegation of sexual advances is further contradicted by the testimony of PW-2 Raj Kumari, his wife, who has stated that the deceased disclosed the alleged fact of sexual advances only to her and that she did not disclose this fact to anybody, including respondent Prem Chand, the husband of the deceased and her own husband PW-1 Ajudhia Lal. PW-2 Raj Kumari also …7… contradicts PW-1 Ajudhia Lal with regard to another part of his testimony. He stated that the allegation was brought to the notice of respondent Prem Chand twice, but he did not pay any heed. PW-2 Raj Kumari, as already noticed, says that the allegation had not been brought to the notice of respondent Prem Chand, the husband of the deceased. 15. Testimony of PW2 Raj Kumari with regard to this allegation is not believable. If deceased had in fact made such an allegation, PW-2 Raj Kumari, being the mother of the deceased, was supposed to have not kept quite. She must have brought it to the notice of her husband and also her son- in-law respondent Prem Chand, who per her own testimony never even quarreled with the deceased. Further she admitted in her testimony that Pohu Ram visited them thrice, after the marriage and before the death of Meena Kumari. Now, if respondent Pohu Ram were reported to have been making sexual advances towards the deceased, neither Pohu Ram would have dared go to the place of the parents of the deceased nor would have they allowed him to visit them. 16. Respondents have stated that in fact the deceased wanted Prem Chand, her husband, to settle in the plains because of the difficulties faced in hilly areas, but Prem Chand was not prepared for this, as there would not have been left anybody in the village to look-after his father, who was quite old and because of this reason false accusation of sexual advances has been made. Even though PW-1 Ajudhia Lal denied the suggestion put to him in the cross-examination that the deceased, he himself and his wife wanted respondent Prem …8… Chand to construct a house in their village, which is in the plains and to settle down there, PW-2 Raj Kumari, the mother of the deceased, admitted that they had offered a piece of land to respondent Prem Chand for constructing a house in her village, but he did not accept that offer. 17. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the present appeal. Reasoning given by the trial Court cannot be said to be not supportable by the evidence on record. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (R.B. Misra), J. July 1, 2008, (ss) (Surjit Singh ), J.