IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 699 of 1996. Reserved on : 11.05.2010. Decided on: 02.06.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Naresh Kumar and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For respondents : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge: State has challenged the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, rendered in Sessions Trial No. 5-NS/7 of 1994, dated 29.02.1996, whereby the accused who were charged with and tried for an offence, under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Respondents No. 2 and 3 have died and the arguments were heard qua respondents No. 1 and 4. 3. The case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that respondent No. 1 is the husband of Leela Devi (deceased). The marriage between accused Naresh Kumar and Leela Devi was solemnized in the month of May, 1992. On 7th July, 1993, at 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. about 4 p.m., Chet Ram (PW-5) alongwith Surat Ram, Pardhan Gram Panchayat informed the Police vide rapat Ex.-PW8/D that his niece was married to Naresh Kumar in May, 1992 and one Shri Jagdish Chand came to him and informed him that Leela Devi has died. Police visited the spot and the dead body was identified by Hari Ram (PW-2) and Surat Ram, Pardhan. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to district hospital for post- mortem. The post-mortem was conducted by PW-6 Dr. Kusum Bhalla and the post-mortem report is Ex.-PW-6/A. Viscera was sent for chemical examination. The investigation was carried out by S.I. Rattan Singh (PW-12). The father of the deceased (PW-2) filed a written complaint, i.e., Ex.-PW8/A. F.I.R. was registered on 24.7.1993 vide Ex.-PW8/B. The respondents were examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Their defence was of denial simpliciter. They were acquitted by the learned trial court. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents. 5. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Smt. Krishna Devi deposed that Leela and Naresh lived happily for about six months after their marriage. Thereafter, Leela Devi (deceased) came to her house and complained about her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. She also complained that she was not given proper clothing and food etc. She was also turned out from her house. Leela Devi also revealed that the accused persons wanted to solemnize the second marriage of accused Naresh Kumar. She was also harassed for bringing inadequate dowry. Krishna Devi (PW-1) assured Leela Devi that she will make necessary enquiries from the accused persons and make them to understand. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she came to know about the death of Leela Devi at 2:00 p.m. through someone, who was sent from the house of her in-laws. However, she did not recognize him. 8. PW-2 Hari Ram is the father of deceased. He also deposed that his daughter and accused Naresh Kumar were living happily in the beginning and there was no complaint, however, after some time, she complained that the accused persons used to torture her, but she did not give any detail. She used to weep, but she did not say anything. She visited his house about 12 days prior to her death and she stated that he should accompany her. He did not accompany her. However, while leaving his house, she told him that she would never return. He sent his nephew Kuldip Singh (PW-3) to give company to her to the house of her in-laws. Kuldip Singh informed him that her in-laws were torturing her. 9. PW-3 is Kuldip. He deposed that he was sent by PW- 2 Hari Ram with Leela to give her company to the house of her in-laws about 10 or 12 days prior to her death. Malti and Nika Ram, the parents of accused Naresh Kumar were present there. Malti did not speak to Leela and Nika Ram told her that she should have lived for more days in the house of her father. When they were taking food with Malti and Nika Ram accused persons, Malti got up and picked up quarrel with Leela Devi. In his cross- examination, he admitted that accused persons did not pick up any quarrel with Leela Devi on the first day, but the quarrel took place next day. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. 10. PW-4 Narotam is the brother of deceased. He stated that Leela Devi was married to accused Naresh Kumar. They lived happily for about six months. Thereafter, whenever she used to visit their house, she complained that the accused persons used to torture her. He accompanied her to the house of her in-laws. He met Malti. She told him that Leela was not well conversant with the household affairs. He came to know about the death of Leela at about 6 p.m. on 07.07.1993. He admitted in cross-examination that the last rites of the deceased were performed by the accused persons. 11. PW-5 Chet Ram has deposed that the relations between Naresh Kumar accused and Leela Devi (deceased) were cordial for about six months after the marriage. Thereafter, the deceased used to allege torture by the accused persons. She also complained about non-providing of essential items, like clothes and meals etc. She visited his house twelve days prior to her death. He admitted in cross-examination that he did not disclose to the Police that Leela was tortured by the accused persons while making the statement to them. He did not disclose to the Police that on 07.07.1993, Leela complained to him that the accused persons were not providing clothes and meals etc. to her and that she was turned out from her house. 12. PW-6 Dr. Kusum Bhalla has conducted the post- mortem on the body of the deceased. In her opinion, the cause of death was due to shock following organio-choloro-poison which is also supported by the history of diarrhea. She admitted in her cross-examination that in the report of F.S.L., the quantity of poison was not mentioned. She also narrated that the food grains and vegetables etc. if not properly washed before consuming and the articles are sprayed, then there is possibility of some contents of poison being present in the viscera. She also admitted in cross-examination that diarrhea leading to dehydration can cause death. 13. PW-10 is Gomti Devi. She stated that on 07.06.1993, she had gone to attend the marriage of Gulaba Ram’s son. The entire family of Nika Ram was also present there. Leela Devi (deceased) was also present in the marriage. She admitted in her cross-examination that Leela Devi did not disclose her about the maltreatment. 14. PW-11 Kamla Devi has stated that she heard the cries from the house of accused in the morning at 7:00 a.m. Then, she heard that Lila Devi has expired. Since her son was two days’ old, she did not go towards the house of accused. 15. The incident has taken place on 7th July, 1993, however, the F.I.R. was recorded on 24th July, 1993. It is true that delay in registration of F.I.R. is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution, however, it is equally settled law that the prosecution has to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 have stated that the relations between Leela Devi (deceased) and Naresh Kumar accused were cordial for about six months after their marriage. There are no specific instances given by any of the witnesses, the manner in which Leela Devi (deceased) was subjected to cruelty. Their statements are only to the effect that she was not provided with proper clothes and meals etc.. None of the witnesses had stated that the matter was ever brought to the notice of Police or Panchayat. No letters were ever written by the deceased to the parents about the maltreatment meted to her. No suicidal note was ever recovered by the Police. 16. PW-1 Krishna Devi has only deposed that Leela Devi was tortured for not bringing sufficient dowry. She has not given any specific date or time when this complaint was made by the deceased to her. The statements of PW-2 and PW-5 are general and vague. There are no specific instances of any type of maltreatment given to the deceased, either mental or physical. The version of PW-1 that there was demand of dowry, has not been supported by PW-2, father of the deceased and PW-4 Narotam, brother of the deceased. PW-3 Kuldip Singh has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-10 has stated that she had gone to attend the marriage of Gulaba Ram’s son on 07.06.1993 and the deceased was also with her up to 2:30 a.m. She also stated that whenever Malti Devi met her, she used to complain that her daughter-in-law Leela Devi was not good looking and she was not well conversant with domestic work. The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was ever subjected to cruelty. The statements of prosecution witnesses are vague and the allegations that in-laws of the deceased Leela Devi wanted to Naresh Kumar accused re-marry and Leela Devi was not well conversant with domestic work, cannot be treated as instances of cruelty. In order to prove cruelty, mental or physical, specific instances are required to be proved. In the present case, prosecution has failed to do so. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge June 02, 2010. (bhupender)