Himachal Pradesh High Court

Reserved On: 4.4.2025 vs State Of H.P on 30 May, 2025

2025:HHC:16788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. Appeal No. 121 of 2010
Reserved on: 4.4.2025
Date of Decision: 30.05.2025

Lalit Rana ...Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. ...Respondent

Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the Appellant : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Simran, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2010, passed by

learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., (learned

Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before learned

Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence

punishable under
Section 498-A
of the Indian Penal Code (
IPC
)

and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two

years, pay fine of ₹3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2025:HHC:16788

undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. (Parties

shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were

arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused

before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences

punishable under
Sections 306
and
498-A
of the IPC. It was

asserted that the accused Lalit Rana informed the police on

22.6.2008 that his wife had committed suicide by hanging

herself. Vijay Sharma (PW12) went to the Regional Hospital,

Nahan, for verification of the information, where Veena Devi

(PW1) made a statement (Ex.PW1/A) that earlier Lata Devi (since

deceased) was married to Naresh Kumar in the year 1987-88. She

obtained a divorce in the year 1989 and married the accused in

the year 1993-94. She and the accused were residing together

after their marriage. Pooja (PW2), was born to Lata Devi. The

accused had cordial relations with deceased Lata Devi for 4-5

years after his marriage, however, he started picking up quarrels

with her on trivial matters. She used to narrate all these facts to

Veena Devi (PW1). Veena Devi counselled the accused, but he did

not heed her advice. Complaints were also made to Savitri Devi,
2025:HHC:16788

Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Devka Pudla. She also counselled the

accused, but the accused did not mend his ways. Lata Devi

informed Veena Devi one month before her death that the

accused Lalit Rana had insulted her by pulling the drawstring of

her salwar in the presence of labourers. Veena Devi talked to the

accused, and he acknowledged his fault. He promised not to

repeat such acts. Lata Devi told these facts to her brother Kamal

Singh. Lata Devi informed Veena Devi in the evening of 21.6.2008

and morning of 22.6.2008 that Lalit Rana was harassing her. She

requested Veena Devi to visit her matrimonial home, however,

Veena was ill and could not meet her. She received a call on

22.6.2008, at about 7/7.30 that Lata Devi had committed suicide

by hanging. Lata Devi had committed suicide because she was fed

up with the behaviour of the accused. Statement (Ex.PW1/A) was

sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered.

Vijay Kumar Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW12) conducted

the investigation of the case. He prepared the inquest report

(Ex.PW12/A) and sent the dead body for postmortem

examination. Dr. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (PW9) conducted the

postmortem examination of the dead body. He issued

postmortem report (Ex.PW9/A), in which it was mentioned that
2025:HHC:16788

the death was probably caused due to partial hanging leading to

asphyxia. He preserved the viscera and handed it over to the

police official accompanying the dead body. Vijay Sharma,

Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW12) visited the spot and

prepared a site plan (Ex.PW2/B). Viscera was sent to FSL for

chemical examination and as per the report (Ex.PW8/A), no

poison was detected in the viscera. Statements of witnesses were

recorded as per their version. After the completion of the

investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, who committed it to

the learned Sessions Judge for trial.

3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the

commission of offences punishable under
Sections 498-A
and
of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its

case. Veena Devi (PW1) is the informant and sister of the

deceased. Pooja (PW2) is the daughter of the deceased. Sirmour

Singh (PW3) is the brother of the deceased. Satish Kumar (PW4)

did not support the prosecution's case. Kamlesh (PW5) is the

cousin and Kanta Devi (PW11) is sister of the deceased. Krishan

Kumar (PW6) took the photographs. ASI Jagdish (PW7) signed
2025:HHC:16788

the FIR. SI Subhash Chand (PW8) conducted the investigation

partly. Dr. Mahender Kumar Sharma (PW9) conducted the

postmortem examination of Lata. Som Dutt (PW10) proved that

marriage was solemnised between the accused and deceased Lata

Devi. Dy.S.P. Vijay Sharma (PW11) conducted the investigation.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under
Section
of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had called the police regarding

the death of his wife. He admitted that police conducted an

inquest on the dead body. He stated that the deceased had not

shown her willingness to go to the Tribhuvan Temple despite his

requests. She chose to live in her home. He stated that Lata was a

short-tempered lady. He had sacrificed a goat in the temple as

per the custom. He distributed the goat meat to his relatives on

the way. Lata Devi questioned him why he had not brought the

whole goat meat with him. She misbehaved with him. He went to

the house of Dil Bahadur (DW1), where he was told that Lata Devi

had committed suicide by hanging herself. He went to the spot

and also informed the police on the telephone. He was falsely

implicated in the present case. Statement of Dil Bahadur (DW1)

was recorded in defence.
2025:HHC:16788

6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of

prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. The fact that the

prosecution had only cited related witnesses will not make the

prosecution's case doubtful because only the relatives would

have known about the household affairs. The witnesses

withstood their cross-examination, and there was nothing to

doubt their testimonies. The statement of Dil Bahadur (DW1) was

not sufficient to discard the prosecution's case. The testimonies

of the witnesses were consistent that the accused treated the

deceased with cruelty. He was counselled by the relatives of the

deceased, but he did not mend his behaviour. He had pulled the

drawstring of Lata Devi in the presence of the labourers. She was

disturbed by this act. The prosecution's evidence proved that the

accused used to give beatings to the deceased, but there was no

evidence that he intended her to commit suicide. Hence, the

learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of

the offence punishable under
Section 306
of IPC but convicted

him of the commission of the offence punishable under
Section

498-A
of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. Being aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused
2025:HHC:16788

has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial

Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. The

prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to prove the cruelty of

the accused. There was a considerable delay in lodging the FIR,

which made the prosecution's case highly suspect. There were

various contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses. Meena

Devi said that Pooja told her about the harassment of the

deceased, but Pooja did not state any such fact, and this made the

prosecution's case suspect. The testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses had major contradictions, which adversely affected the

prosecution's case. The informant failed to prove various

allegations levelled by her in her complaint. Prosecution

witnesses had sufficient time to connive with each other to

falsely implicate the accused. The investigation is defective, and

the defence evidence proved on the balance of probability that

the accused was not even present in the home when the deceased

had committed suicide. As per the prosecution's case, the

accused pulled the drawstring of Lata Devi in the presence of the

labourers, however, the labourers were not produced before the

Court. All the incriminating circumstances were not put to the

accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be
2025:HHC:16788

allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be

set aside.

8. I have heard Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel

assisted by Ms. Simran, learned counsel for the

appellant/accused, and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy

Advocate General, for the respondent-State.

9. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the

appellant/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred

in convicting and sentencing the accused. There were various

contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The

incident occurred on 22.6.2008, whereas the matter was reported

to the police on 23.6.2008. The delay in reporting the matter to

the police makes the prosecution's case highly suspect. There are

major contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses, which made the prosecution's case highly suspect.

Learned Trial Court had acquitted the accused for the

commission of the offence punishable under
Section 306
of IPC,

but convicted him of the commission of the offence punishable

under
Section 498-A
of IPC, which is impermissible. The defence

evidence made it highly probable that the deceased was short-

tempered lady. She had a dispute with her husband regarding the
2025:HHC:16788

distribution of meat.
Testimony of Dil Bahadur (DW1) proved this

fact. Learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the testimony of Dil

Bahadur (DW1). He prayed that the present appeal be allowed and

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgments in

Jafarudheen and others Vs. State of Kerala
(
2022) 8 SCC 440, State of

Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ratan Singh and others
(
2020) 12 SCC 630,

Jagdishraj Khatta Vs. State of H.P.
(
2019) 9 SCC 248, D. Thamodaran

Vs. Kandasamy and another
(
2015) 16 SCC 758 and Nirat Singh Vs.

Sita Devi and others
2025:HHC:5345 in support of his submission.

10. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for

the respondent-State, submitted that the learned Trial Court

acquitted the accused because it was not proved that the accused

intended the deceased to commit suicide. No finding was

recorded that she was not subjected to cruelty. Therefore, the

acquittal of the accused by the learned Trial Court will not help

the defence. There was sufficient evidence on record to prove the

involvement of the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the

present appeal be dismissed.

11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions

made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.
2025:HHC:16788

12. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court could

not have acquitted the accused of the commission of an offence

punishable under
Section 306
of the IPC and convicted him of the

commission of an offence punishable under
Section 498A
of the

IPC. This Submission is not acceptable. It was
laid down by
the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
,

(2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1260

that offences punishable under
Sections 498A
and
of IPC are

independent of each other and it is not necessary that the person

should be found guilty of the commission of both offences on the

same evidence. It was observed at page 629:

"22.
Sections 498-A
and
IPC are independent and
constitute different offences. Though, depending on the
facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a
woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under
Section
498-A
and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to
cruelty is established leaving no other option for the
woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to
commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has
been held liable to be punished under
Section 498-A
IPC it
does not follow that on the same evidence he must also
and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the
commission of suicide by the woman concerned..."

13. A similar view was taken in
Girdhar Shankar Tawade v.

State of Maharashtra
, (2002) 5 SCC 177 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 971 : 2002

SCC OnLine SC 510 wherein it was observed at page 183:
2025:HHC:16788

"17. As regards the core issue as to whether charges under

Sections 306
and
498-A
of the Penal Code, 1860 are
independent of each other and acquittal of one does not
lead to acquittal on the other, as noticed earlier, there
appears to be a long catena of cases in affirmation thereto
and as such further dilation is not necessary neither are we
inclined to do so..."

14. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused because the

evidence on record did not indicate that the accused had intended

that the deceased to commit suicide. Learned Trial Court had not

recorded any finding that the deceased was not subjected to

cruelty. Therefore, no advantage can be derived from the

acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.

15. The scope of
Section 498-A
of IPC was explained by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Aluri Venkata Ramana vs. Aluri

Thirupathi Rao and Ors.
(12.12.2024 - SC Order):

MANU/SCOR/151680/2024, wherein it was observed: -

"7. Firstly, the provision under
Section 498-A
IPC must be
examined. The said provision reads as under:

"498A. Husband or relative of the husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years and shall also be liable to a fine.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this section,
"cruelty" means-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb,
2025:HHC:16788

or health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand."

8.
Section 498A
of the IPC was introduced in the year 1983
with the primary objective of protecting married women
from cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws.
The section provides a broad and inclusive definition of
"cruelty," encompassing both physical and mental harm to
the woman's body or health. In addition, it covers acts of
harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into
fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security,
including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision
also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a
woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty.

9. The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to

Section 498A
is specifically outlined in clause (b),
independent of the "wilful conduct" described in clause (a),
thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is
significant to note that the inclusion of the word "or" at the
end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the
purposes of
Section 498A
can either involve wilful conduct
that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related to
unlawful demands, such as dowry. Moreover, these forms of
cruelty can co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related
demand does not preclude the application of the section in
cases where there is mental or physical harassment
unrelated to the dowry. In interpreting the provision, it is
crucial to consider the broader objective behind its
introduction to safeguarding women from all forms of
cruelty, regardless of whether the nature of the harm
inflicted includes a specific demand for dowry or not.

10. The statement of objects and reasons for the introduction
of this provision in the
Indian Penal Code
by The Criminal
Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No.45 of 1983)
reads as under -
2025:HHC:16788

"The increasing number of Dowry Deaths is a matter
of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been
commented upon by the Joint Committee of the
Houses to examine the workings of the
Dowry
Prohibition Act
of 1961. Cases of cruelty by the
husband and the relatives of the husband, which
culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the hapless
woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of
the cases involving such cruelty. It is therefore
proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act
suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of
Dowry Death but also cases of cruelty to married
women by their in-laws."

11. It is relevant to note the last line, which explains that the
aim of the introduction of Section 498A in the
IPC
is not only
to curb cruelty relating to dowry demand but also cases of
cruelty to married woman by their in-laws. A reasonable
interpretation of this would be that cruelty within this
section goes beyond the definition of cruelty relating just to
dowry demand.

12.
In the judgment of
U. Suvetha v. State
(2009)6 SCC 757, this
Court outlined the necessary ingredients required to
establish an offence under
Section 498A
of the IPC, as
follows:

"7. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are:

(a)The woman must be married;

(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or
harassment; and

(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been
shown either by the husband of the woman or by
the relative of her husband."

13. From the above ingredients reiterated by this Court, it is
clear that an unlawful demand for dowry is not a pre-
requisite element to constitute "cruelty" under
Section 498A

IPC. It suffices that the conduct falls within either of the two
broad categories outlined in clauses (a) or (b) of the
provision, namely, wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury
or mental harm (clause a), or harassment intended to coerce
2025:HHC:16788

the woman or her family to meet any unlawful demand
(clause b). Therefore, either form of cruelty, independent of
dowry demand, is sufficient to attract the provisions of

Section 498A
IPC and make the offence punishable under the
law.

14. Further, in the judgment of
Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar

(2001) 6 SCC 407, this Court observed that -

"25. The word 'cruelty' in common English
acceptation denotes a state of conduct which is painful
and distressing to another. The legislative intent in
Section 498-A is clear enough to indicate that in the
event of there being a state of conduct by the husband
to the wife or by any relative of the husband which can
be attributed to be painful or distressing, the same
would be within the meaning of the section".

15. The impugned judgment of the High Court carefully
examined several legal precedents pertaining to the two
distinct limbs of
Section 498A
IPC. The High Court correctly
observed that the decisions cited by the counsel for the
accused did not establish that the wilful conduct referred to
in clause (a) of Section 498A would only be considered as
cruelty if it is coupled with a dowry demand or any unlawful
demand for property or valuable security, as specified in
clause (b). The High Court rightly rejected this contention.
However, following this observation, the High Court also
noted that the Appellant did not specifically allege a demand
for property or valuable security, and further concluded that
the allegation of the accused physically assaulting the
Appellant did not amount to "wilful conduct" as envisaged
under clause (a) of
Section 498A
IPC. The judgment of the
High Court primarily focused on the issue of whether a
dowry demand is a necessary element for the applicability of

Section 498A
IPC. The conclusion it arrived at was that the
two clauses of the provision must be read disjunctively,
thereby confirming that the absence of a dowry demand does
not preclude the application of the section. Despite this, the
High Court went on to quash the criminal proceedings
against the accused under
Section 498A
IPC. Notably, the
High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why
the allegations made by the Appellant, specifically that she
had been physically beaten, did not amount to "cruelty"
2025:HHC:16788

under
Section 498A
IPC. The High Court's decision to quash
the proceedings appears to have been primarily influenced
by the lack of a dowry-related demand in the case, without
addressing the broader implications of the allegations of
physical abuse, which can fall within the scope of "cruelty"
as contemplated by the provision."

16. It is apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court that the definition of Cruelty not only covers the

acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family

into fulfilling unlawful demands of dowry but also recognises the

acts which involve mental or physical harm to the deceased.

17. Pooja Devi (PW2) is the daughter of the deceased. She

was residing with the accused and the deceased; therefore, she is

the best person to depose about household affairs. She stated

that the accused is her father. He used to sell illicit liquor. Lata

Devi protested the sale of the liquor. The accused used to quarrel

with the deceased under the influence of liquor. She (Pooja) did

not have good relations with the accused because of the

harassment of her mother. She was present in her home on

22.6.2008. Labourers were called to carry out the construction

work 15-20 days before the death of Lata Devi. Lata Devi went to

the labourers to serve tea, where the accused pulled the

drawstring of her salwar in the presence of labourers. Lata Devi

started weeping and telephoned her brother and sister about the
2025:HHC:16788

incident. She (Pooja) reached the village in the morning of

22.6.2008 due to a Pooja function. Lata Devi was also to go to the

Tribhuni Temple for Pooja. Accused hired a vehicle to go to the

temple, but he did not take her and Lata Devi to the temple. Lata

Devi was keen to visit the temple on that day. The accused

returned from the temple at 4.00 PM. Lata was at home. She

asked the accused why he was late. The accused became furious

and started damaging the windows with an axe. Accused and Lata

Devi shut the door and quarrelled inside the room. She (Pooja)

was studying in her room. She came out of the room after some

time, but did not find her mother in the house. She came to know

after some time that Lata Devi had committed suicide by hanging

herself in a nearby jungle. Lata Devi committed suicide because

the accused used to torture her frequently, and he had made her

life miserable. She stated in her cross-examination that the

name of her father is Naresh. He met her on the way when she

was going to the house of the accused. The accused went to the

Tribhuni Temple with other persons. When she reached the

house, Lata Devi was doing the household chores, and she also

helped her with the work. She took lunch at about Noon and went

to her room. The accused returned at about 4.00 PM. She was not
2025:HHC:16788

aware that Dil Bahadur had accompanied the accused. The

accused had brought the entire meat to the house, and Lata Devi

did not tell him why he had distributed the meat on the way while

coming from the temple. All the people had consumed alcohol

while returning from the temple. Lata Devi told something to the

accused, and the accused started quarrelling with her. He could

not say what was told by Lata Devi, which infuriated the accused.

Dil Bahadur (DW1) started separating the share of the villagers,

which was to be distributed as Prasad. She was studying in the

room. Dil Bahadur (DW1) stayed in the house for half an hour and

thereafter went for the distribution of meat as Prasad. The

accused returned when news of the death of Lata Devi spread.

Sisters and brothers of Lata had also visited the house on that

evening. The police made inquiries to them about the cause of

death. Lata Devi wanted her (Pooja) to marry Ajay, and the

marriage between them was fixed, but she refused to marry him

because her maternal uncle did not give consent to the marriage.

She denied that Lata Devi was upset due to this act. Prem Chand

and Sandeep were labourers working in the house when the

accused had pulled the drawstring of the salwar. She had

returned to the house on the very night when Lata Devi had
2025:HHC:16788

committed suicide. She was residing with her Aunt Kanta at

Nahan. She denied that the accused had not harassed Lata Devi,

and she was making a false statement.

18. Kanta Devi (PW11) corroborated her version. She

stated that Lata Devi told her many times that the accused used

to torture and humiliate her on petty matters. The accused is

involved in the business of the illicit distillation and sale of

liquor. He used to beat Lata Devi in a state of intoxication. Pooja

was born to Lata Devi during the subsistence of her earlier

marriage. She resided in the house of the accused. She had

shifted to her (Kanta's) house to pursue her studies at Nahan,

and she was facing a problem on account of the maltreatment

meted out to her and Lata Devi. Pooja had gone to the house of

the accused on 22.6.2008, at about 6.00 AM. She (Kanta) received

a message on the same day at about 7.45 PM that Lata Devi had

committed suicide. She stated in her cross-examination that she

had received information about the death of Lata Devi from the

Village Teeb. She and Kamlesh visited the house of Lata Devi. Her

statement was recorded by the police after 2-3 days. She had told

the police that the accused used to distil illicit liquor. She had not

personally seen the accused beating and harassing Lata Devi.
2025:HHC:16788

Pooja was residing with her for about two months before the

death of Lata Devi. She used to pursue her studies from her home.

The police were present in the house of Lata Devi and were

inquiring about the cause of death. Police had also made

enquiries from her. Pooja had not returned with her. She

volunteered to say that Pooja remained in the house of her

maternal uncle, Sirmour Singh. She returned to the house of the

accused on the next day. Pooja never liked the accused. She

volunteered to say that the accused used to harass her. The

accused even used to charge diet money from Lata Devi. She was

not aware of Lata Devi's source of income. She did not know

whether Sirmour Singh, his brother and their wives or Veena

were present at the time of recording the statement of Pooja.

They had never reported to any authority about the harassment

of Lata Devi.

19. The presence of Pooja in the house is established by

the testimony of this witness. She categorically stated that Pooja

left her home on 22.6.2008. This is also probable because

everyone had gone to the Tribhuni temple on that day. The meat

was being distributed as a Prasad. Hence, the presence of Pooja in

the house of the accused cannot be doubted.
2025:HHC:16788

20. The statement of Pooja that the quarrel had taken

place between the accused and the deceased was also not

disputed by the accused in his statement recorded under Section

313 of the Cr. P.C. The accused stated that the deceased had

inquired from him why he had brought less meat. He even

examined Dil Bahadur (DW1) to prove this fact. Hence, the

testimony regarding the quarrel is to be accepted as correct, and

this shows the presence of Pooja on 22.6.2008. Sirmour Singh

(PW3) also stated that Pooja was present in the house. This is

also corroborated by the statement of Dy.SP Vijay Kumar (PW12),

who recorded the statement of Pooja at 11.00 PM. Hence, the

presence of Pooja in the house on the date of the incident is duly

established.

21. Dil Bahadur (DW1) stated that the accused brought

less meat, and Lata became infuriated. She started inquiring

from the accused as to why the entire goat was not brought

home. The accused replied that he had distributed some meat to

the persons living at a distance of 3 to 5 kilometres from his

house. Lata Devi took up a quarrel with the accused. He (Dil

Bahadur) tried to pacify her by saying that there was nothing

wrong with distributing meat, but when the situation did not
2025:HHC:16788

improve, he sent the accused to his house, and he started making

pieces of the meat. Satish Kumar also came to the spot for the

distribution of the meat to the villagers.

22. The statement of this witness is relevant regarding

the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 306
of

IPC; however, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused

of the commission of an offence punishable under
Section 306
of

IPC by holding that the incident dated 22.6.2008 was not duly

proved. Therefore, his testimony is not relevant regarding the

cruelty meted out to the deceased.

23. It was submitted that Pooja deposed about the

incident of pulling the drawstring of salwar of Lata Devi by the

accused in presence of Prem and Sandeep. The police did not

examine Prem and Sandeep, and it is sufficient to discard the

prosecution's case. This submission is not acceptable. It was
laid

down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Appabhai v. State of

Gujarat
, 1988 Supp SCC 241: 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 that the

prosecution's case cannot be doubted due to the non-

examination of the independent witnesses. It was observed at

page 245:
2025:HHC:16788

"11. In light of these principles, we may now consider the
first contention urged by the learned counsel for the ap-

pellants. The contention relates to the failure of the prose-
cution to examine independent witnesses. The High Court
has examined this contention but did not find any infir-
mity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the pros-
ecution has not been able to produce any independent wit-
ness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There
must have been several such witnesses. But the prosecu-
tion's case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that
ground alone. The experience reminds us that civilised
people are generally insensitive when a crime is commit-
ted even in their presence. They withdraw both from the
victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from
the court unless it is inevitable. They think that a crime,
like a civil dispute, is between two individuals or parties,
and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apa-
thy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is
there everywhere, whether in village life, towns or cities.
One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investi-
gating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, there-
fore, instead of doubting the prosecution's case for want
of an independent witness, must consider the broad spec-
trum of the prosecution's version and then search for the
nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, sug-
gested by the accused."

24. It was
laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pohlu v.

State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 196: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1496: 2004 SCC

OnLine SC 1393, that the intrinsic worth of the testimony of

witnesses has to be assessed by the Court and if the testimony of

the witnesses appears to be truthful, the non-examination of

other witnesses will not make the testimony of prosecution

witness doubtful. It was observed at page 199: -
2025:HHC:16788

"10. It was then submitted that some of the material
witnesses were not examined, and, in this connection, it
was argued that two of the eye-witnesses named in the
FIR, namely, Chander and Sita Ram, were not examined by
the prosecution. Dharamvir, son of Sukhdei, was also not
examined by the prosecution, though he was a material
witness, being an injured eyewitness, having witnessed
the assault that took place in the house of Sukhdei, PW 2.

It is true that it is not necessary for the prosecution to
multiply witnesses if it prefers to rely upon the evidence of
eyewitnesses examined by it, which it considers sufficient
to prove the case of the prosecution. However, the
intrinsic worth of the testimony of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution has to be assessed by the
Court. If their evidence appears to be truthful, reliable and
acceptable, the mere fact that some other witnesses have
not been examined will not adversely affect the case of the
prosecution. We have, therefore, to examine the evidence
of the two eye witnesses, namely, PW 1 and PW 2, and to
find whether their evidence is true, on the basis of which
the conviction of the appellants can be sustained. "

25. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Srichand K. Khetwani v. State of Maharashtra
, 1966 SCC OnLine SC

32 : (1967) 1 SCR 595: AIR 1967 SC 450: 1967 Cri LJ 414: (1967) 2 SCJ

178, that an adverse inference can be drawn for withholding

certain evidence and not for failure to obtain the evidence. It was

observed

"8. Further, an adverse inference against the prosecution
can be drawn only if it withholds certain evidence and not
merely on account of its failure to obtain certain evidence.
When no such evidence has been obtained, it cannot be
said what that evidence could have been and therefore, no
question of presuming that that evidence would have been
2025:HHC:16788

against the prosecution, under Section 114, illustration (g)
of the
Evidence Act
, can arise."

26. The testimonies of Prem and Sandeep would have

been necessary to corroborate the testimony of Pooja, but her

testimony is satisfactory, as noticed above, and the non-

examination of Prem and Sandeep will not be fatal to the

prosecution's case.

27. It was submitted that the incident had taken place on

22.6.2008, and the matter was reported to the police on

23.6.2008 in the morning. The delay in reporting the matter to

the police is fatal to the prosecution's case. This submission

cannot be accepted. The delay in reporting the matter does not

lead to the rejection of the prosecution's case but merely puts the

Court on caution. (Please see
Jafarudeen and others
(supra),
Ratan

Singh
(supra),
D. Thamodaran
(supra) and
Neeraj Singh
(supra).

28. Dy.SP Vijay Sharma (PW12) stated in his cross-

examination that he had made inquiries from the brothers of the

deceased and the persons present in the house of the accused on

22.6.2008 about the reason of suicide and found out that there

was an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the

accused over the distribution of meat. The statement of Pooja
2025:HHC:16788

was recorded at 11.00 PM. She and other relatives had gathered at

the house because of the death of Lata.

29. The cross-examination of this witness shows that he

had come to know about the quarrel between the accused and the

deceased. Strictly speaking, the statement made to the

Investigating Officer during the investigation is hearsay and

cannot be admitted; however, the defence itself had put these

questions, and these answers were relied on during arguments,

therefore, they are being referred to. These answers do not

suggest that any fresh version was introduced which was not told

to the Investigating Officer on the night of 22.6.2008.

30. Veena Devi (PW1) stated that the accused and

deceased resided happily for 2-3 years after their marriage,

however, the accused started taking liquor and giving beatings to

the deceased. The deceased used to call her (Veena Devi) and tell

her about the behaviour of the accused. Lata Devi informed her

(Veena) about one month before her death that the drawstring of

her salwar was hanging outside the shirt. The accused pulled the

drawstring and made her naked in the presence of labourers. She

inquired from the accused, who said that it had happened by

mistake and he would behave normally in future. Lata Devi
2025:HHC:16788

informed her on 21.6.2008 that the accused was harassing her.

She called her (Veena Devi) to her house, but she could not visit

Lata's matrimonial home. Lata Devi again called her in the

morning of 22.6.2008 and told her that they had to visit the

Tribhuni temple, and she asked Veena Devi (PW1) to accompany

her. She (Veena Devi) told Lata Devi that her family had already

hired a vehicle. The police informed her in the evening of

22.6.2008 that Lata Devi had committed suicide. She stated in her

cross-examination that she had received the call from Khem

Chand, who was serving in the police at Nahan and is related to

her. Lata was married to Naresh, and Pooja was born during the

subsistence of the marriage. Lata sought a divorce because her

mother-in-law used to harass her. She specifically denied that

Lata Devi had a short temper. The accused had eloped with Lata

to marry her; however, no complaint was made regarding this

fact. Pooja was studying at Nahan and was residing with Kanta

Devi on the date of deposition. 5-6 persons had accompanied the

accused to the Tribhuni temple. She did not visit the house of the

accused as his behaviour with Lata Devi was not proper. Her

brother, Sirmour Singh, her wife, two sons, Sukh Bahadur, his

wife, and her son-in-law accompanied her to the house of the
2025:HHC:16788

accused. The police visited the house of the accused on that day.

The accused was also sitting with the police. She denied that

Pooja shifted to Nahan because it was inconvenient for her to

attend College from Village Teeb. Pooja told her that the accused

had distributed meat on the way, which led to a quarrel. She had

not complained about the beatings to her sister or any authority.

31. It was submitted in her testimony that Pooja had told

her about the distribution of the meat on the way is contrary to

the statement of Pooja, who claimed that the accused had

brought the whole meat to the house, and this contradiction

adversely affects the prosecution's case. This submission is not

acceptable. Pooja was never asked about the statement made to

this witness, even though this witness was cross-examined

before Pooja. It was
laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Majid v. State of Haryana
, (2001) 10 SCC 6: 2002 SCC (Cri) 945: 2001

SCC OnLine SC 1439 that the attention of the witness must be

drawn to his previous oral statement to impeach his credit. It was

observed at page 10:

"14. If the former statement was in writing or was reduced to
writing,
Section 145
of the Act requires that the attention of
the witness must be called to those parts of it which are used
for the purpose of contradicting him. Here, the statement
allegedly made by PW 6 to DW 1 was not in writing, nor was it
reduced to writing. Nonetheless, if the object of examining
2025:HHC:16788

DW 1 as a witness was to discredit PW 6, it is only fair to
insist that PW 6 himself should have been given an
opportunity to explain it. Without PW 6 being asked about
that aspect, it is unreasonable to expect PW 6 to explain
about it. Hence, it is immaterial that the statement claimed
by DW 1 as made to him by PW 6 was not reduced to writing.

15. When PW 6 was cross-examined by the defence counsel,
he was not asked anything about the alleged statement made
by him to DW 1. In such a situation, we cannot give any
credence to the evidence of DW 1."

32. In the present case, the attention of Pooja was not

drawn towards the previous inconsistent statement made to

Veena; therefore, no advantage can be derived from this

statement made by Veena Devi (PW1).

33. Sirmour Singh (PW3) stated that Lata was his sister

who was married to the accused in 1993 on her own choice. Lata

Devi used to visit his house frequently, and she used to tell him

and his wife, Savitri, Ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Devka

Purla, about the harassment meted out to her by the accused in

her daily life. The accused indulged in the distilling and selling of

illicit liquor, which led to a quarrel between the accused and the

deceased. The accused used to beat Lata Devi in a state of

intoxication. He stated in his cross-examination that his house is

about 3-4 kilometres from the house of the accused. Accused and

Lata were not on visiting terms at his house for about two years

after their marriage. However, they used to visit his house
2025:HHC:16788

afterwards on the occasion of marriages. He had never

complained to the police or the Panchayat about the harassment

of Lata Devi or the selling of illicit liquor by the accused. The

police were present in the house of Lata Devi when they visited

her house. They remained in the house of the accused till

midnight. He had told the police about the harassment and the

beatings. The police also made inquiries of Pooja.

34. It was submitted that no witness had made any

complaint against the accused for the distillation of illicit liquor.

This will not make the prosecution's case suspect. The accused

was married to Lata, the sister of the prosecution witnesses.

Sending the accused to Jail would have put Lata in financial

difficulties, and not much can be made out from the failure to

report the illicit distillation to the police.

35. Sirmour Singh (PW3) specifically stated that the

complaint was made to Savitri. This is the earliest version made

to the police that the complaints were made to Savitri, Ex-

Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Devka Purla.
In any case, it was
laid

down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh

Chavda v. State of Gujarat
, (2025) 2 SCC 116: (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 652:

2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 that failure to report the matter does
2025:HHC:16788

not make the prosecution's case suspect. It was observed at page

122:

17. The appellants' argument that the deceased had not made
a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the
appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be
sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for
twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of
cruelty or harassment.

36. It was submitted that Veena Devi (PW1) said in her

cross-examination that Lata Devi used to confide in her because

she was afraid of her brother; therefore, the testimony of

Sirmour Singh (PW3) is not reliable. This submission cannot be

accepted because it was specifically mentioned in the initial

version that complaints were made to Savitri, Ex-Pradhan.

37. Kamlesh (PW5) stated that Lata Devi was her cousin,

being the daughter of her Massi (Maternal Aunt). Lata Devi

resided in her neighbourhood. Lata Devi used to complain that

the accused was beating her occasionally. She stated in her

cross-examination that her mother and mother of Lata Devi are

real sisters. Pooja was residing with her parents in her home, and

she started residing with Kanta Devi after the death of her

mother. She was not aware when the statement of Pooja was

recorded by the police. Pooja had gone to the house of the

accused one day before the date of the incident. She was
2025:HHC:16788

frequently visiting the house of her maternal aunt. She denied

that she was making a false statement.

38. Her testimony is natural and corroborates the

statement of Kanta Devi (PW11). Nothing was shown in her

cross-examination that she had any motive to depose falsely

against the accused.

39. Satish (PW4) did not support the prosecution's case.

He stated that he visited the Tribhuni temple on 22.6.2008 with

the accused. He could not say whether Pooja (PW2) was at home

on that day. The accused had asked him to distribute the meat of

the sacrificed goat amongst the villagers. When he reached the

house, the doors were open, and nobody was present in the

house. He saw the dead body of Lata Devi hanging in a tree at a

distance of 100 metres. The accused was present in the house of

Dil Bahadur (DW1). He informed about the discovery of the dead

body. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He denied that he

saw Pooja (PW2) watching TV in her room. He denied that he had

inquired from Pooja about Lata Devi, who replied that Lata Devi

was not at home. He denied that he and Pooja searched for Lata

Devi. He denied that he was making a false statement. He denied

the previous statement recorded by the police. He stated in his
2025:HHC:16788

cross-examination by learned counsel for the defence that there

was a fair in the temple of Tribhuni. Many people had gathered at

the fair. The vehicle in which the accused was travelling met him

on the way, and he requested a lift.

40. The testimony of this witness will not make the

prosecution's case suspect. He denied the presence of Pooja in

the house, but the presence of Pooja (PW2) is duly established by

other evidence. Further, he was contradicted by his previous

statement wherein he had deposed about the presence of Pooja.

Thus, he is shown to have made two inconsistent statements,

and his credibility has been impeached. Therefore, his testimony

cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case.

41. It was submitted that the statements of prosecution

witnesses are vague and general, and no particulars of time and

date were given. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jagdish Raj Khetta
(supra). This

judgment will not help the accused because Pooja and Veena have

specifically deposed that the accused had pulled the drawstring

of the salwar of Lata Devi in the presence of the labourers. It was

a specific incident meant to humiliate Lata Devi in the presence

of labourers. This incident corroborates the statements of the
2025:HHC:16788

prosecution witnesses that the accused used to quarrel with the

deceased on trivial matters.

42. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held

that the accused had treated the deceased with cruelty. Hence,

the accused was rightly convicted of the commission of an

offence punishable under
Section 498-A
of the IPC.

43. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years and was directed to pay a

fine of ₹3,000/-. This is not excessive, keeping in view the

manner in which the accused had humiliated the deceased in the

presence of labourers, and no interference is required with the

sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.

44. No other point is urged.

45. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and the

same is dismissed.

46. Records be sent back forthwith along with a copy of

the judgment. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

of.

(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
30th May, 2025
(Chander)