IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 216 of 1995 Reserved on : 16.04.2009. Date of decision: 18.04.2009 State of H.P. …. Appellant. Vs. Rattan Chand and others ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents No. 1 and 2: Mr. Bipin Negi, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Kangra at Dharmshala, in Sessions trial No. 4-P/VII/1994 dated 16.5.1994, whereby the accused have been acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Section 306, 498-A, 201 and 176 IPC. Briefly stated, the prosecution version is that deceased Smt. Natho Devi was married to accused Ramesh Chand. The other two accused Rattan Chand and Jyoti are his brother and sister-in-law. According to the prosecution, the deceased died as a result of committing suicide by strangulation on 27.8.1992 and she was compelled to commit suicide due to the harassment and maltreatment meted out to her by the accused. She allegedly committed suicide on 27.8.1992 at 2.00 p.m by hanging herself from the ceiling of the room of the house. It is further alleged that the accused No.3, husband of the deceased, did not lodge a report about the suicide and destroyed the evidence of the offence by cremating the dead 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment. yes. 2 body on the same day during the night time in a hurried manner without informing her relations from the parental side. PW-2, Hari Singh, brother of the deceased, lodged F.I.R. Ext.P2 with the police four days after the alleged incident on 31.8.1992. Investigation was conducted and the police filed a challan. The accused were charged with the offences mentioned here-in-above. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, they have been acquitted and hence the present appeal. It is pertinent to mention that PW-2, brother of the deceased, on whose statement the F.I.R. was lodged, himself turned hostile. He stated that the deceased had never complained to him about any maltreatment at the hands of her in-laws, especially the accused. Though he was cross- examined by the public prosecutor he denied that he had made any statement that the deceased had complained to him or his family members that she was being ill-treated by her in-laws. This witness stated that on 28.8.1992, the day after the death, he had come to the house of the accused and then returned to his house. There is no explanation why the F.I.R was not lodged immediately on the next day if he had been informed by the accused as claimed by him that the deceased had committed suicide. PW-1 Mahlu Ram also turned hostile. He has denied that he was informed by any person that the deceased had committed suicide. He also states that he had participated in the cremation of the deceased. According to him, the accused waited for the parental relations of the deceased to come before the cremation till dusk and cremation was done thereafter. Though the mother of the deceased states that the deceased had been complaining to her about being maltreated at the hands of the accused, there is one glaring contradiction in the statement of this witness. Whereas in Court she states that she came to know about the death of her daughter on the next day, in her statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 3 Ext. DA, it has been clearly recorded that she came to know about the death of her daughter in the late hours of the same day. She was confronted with her earlier statement. PW-4, Hem Raj, is the uncle of the deceased. According to him, they came to know about the death of the deceased at 8.00 p.m on the date of death itself. He also states that originally they came to know that she had died due to stomach problem but when they come to the house of the accused, Ramesh Chand accused himself informed them about the fact that the deceased had committed suicide. PW-5, Siria, who is also an uncle of the deceased, has totally contradicted the statement of PW-4. According to him, when next day, he alongwith PW-2, PW-4, etc. had gone to the house of the accused they were informed that the deceased had died due to stomach-ache. He has denied the suggestion that they were informed that the accused had committed suicide. Other witnesses have also turned hostile. If the entire evidence is gone through, it is apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased had committed suicide. There is no direct evidence in this regard. The only evidence is the alleged statement of Ramesh Chand accused made to the family members of the deceased when they came to his house the next day. However, most of the family members have themselves turned hostile and have denied that Ramesh Chand ever made such a statement. If such a statement had been made then the F.I.R. would have been lodged on the next day i.e. 28.8.1992 itself. There is no explanation as to why this F.I.R. was not lodged till 31.8.1992. Even with regard to the alleged cruelty towards the deceased at the hands of the accused the evidence is totally lacking in content and is not at all reliable. PW-3, Premi Devi, mother of the deceased and PW-4, Hem Raj, 4 her maternal uncle, have made some general statements in this regard. However, her real brother, PW-2 and her other uncle PW-5 and other relatives have not at all supported the prosecution version. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove cruelty or even the fact that the deceased committed the suicide. In view of the above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned trial Court. The appeal being without merit is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. (Deepak Gupta), J. April 18, 2009. ( V.K.Ahuja ), J. ™