Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1041 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. NARAIN DATT

2009-11-12

SURINDER SINGH, SURJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, J.(Oral)-State has appealed against the judgment dated 9.12.1994 of learned Sessions Court, whereby respondent Narain Datt, who was charged with and tried for offences of subjecting his wife to cruelty and abetting the commission of suicide by her, punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code, respectively, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, as per evidence on record may be summed-up thus. Deceased Nirmala was married to accused Narain Datt within seven years of her committing suicide, which she committed on or about 2nd April, 1992. From the wed-lock of the deceased and the respondent, two children were born. In the beginning, deceased was kept and maintained properly. Lateron, respondent started maltreating her because of her not agreeing to his plan to marry her sister. Fed up with the maltreatment, at the hands of the respondent, the deceased allegedly committed suicide. 3. Trial Court charged the respondent with the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code and put him on trial when he pleaded not guilty. 4. Prosecution examined four witnesses, namely, PW1 Dev Parkash a cousin of the deceased, PW2 Shibi Devi, mother of deceased, PW3, Kokla a sister of the deceased and PW4 Daropta, a lady from the village of the parents of the deceased, to prove the charge. All the four witnesses testified that the deceased used to be maltreated by the respondent as he wanted to marry another woman. PW2 Shibi Devi, mother of the deceased further stated that once Nirmala had demanded money from her at the instance of the respondent, but she did not say that the respondent ever harassed the deceased on account of the demand for money. Also we find this part of the statement of PW2 Shibi Devi is as an after thought because in the statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext. PW2-A) which she lodged with the Police, there is mention of demand for money by the deceased at the instance of the respondent. 5. PW1 Dev Parkash a cousin of the deceased and PW2 Shibi Devi mother of the deceased did not disclose despite being questioned in the cross-examination by the respondent as to whom the respondent wanted to re-marry. PW2-A) which she lodged with the Police, there is mention of demand for money by the deceased at the instance of the respondent. 5. PW1 Dev Parkash a cousin of the deceased and PW2 Shibi Devi mother of the deceased did not disclose despite being questioned in the cross-examination by the respondent as to whom the respondent wanted to re-marry. However, PW3 Kokla a younger sister of the deceased stated that respondent wanted to marry her and when she refused his proposal, as she was only 15 years of age at the time of proposal, respondent started maltreating the deceased. Daropta PW4 living in the neighbourhood of the parents of the deceased also stated that respondent wanted to marry Kokla (PW3) younger sister of the deceased and because of that, he used to quarrel with the deceased. 6. Prosecution also cited one Usha Devi, examined as Court witness (CW1) but did not examine her as its witness. Court examined her as its own witness. The witness stated that she is the resident of the village where the deceased and the respondent had their matrimonial home. She stated that deceased was never ill-treated by the respondent and that both respondent and deceased were a happy couple. The witness was not cross-examined by the prosecution. It may be noticed that it was this witness who saw the deceased hanging from a rafter of the rooms of her house. She saw her dead body after removing a few slates of the roof. Then she entered the room through the hole made in the roof and unchained the door of the room from inside and informed the people. Though these facts are not testified by her in her testimony as CW1, the same find mention in the site plan Ext. PW9/B prepared by the Investigating Officer of the case, namely, A.S.I. Mohan Singh (PW9). From the fact that the time gap between death and the postmortem is opined to be 48 to 72 hours by PW5 Dr. Harinderjit Singh Sekho, who conducted the postmortem examination on 3rd April, 1992, it can be presumed that the deceased hanged herself to death on 1st April or 31st March, 1992. The room, in which the dead body was found hanging, was bolted from inside, per site plan Ext-PW9/B. The facts suggest that the respondent was not at home during the days when deceased took the extreme step. The room, in which the dead body was found hanging, was bolted from inside, per site plan Ext-PW9/B. The facts suggest that the respondent was not at home during the days when deceased took the extreme step. There were no marks of violence or struggle on her body per testimony of PW5 Dr. Harinderjit Singh Sekho. That means she had not been subjected to any physical cruelty when she committed suicide or soon before that. 7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not think this to be a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial Court. Hence appeal is dismissed.