Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 576 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. DHARAM SINGH

2010-03-23

DEEPAK GUPTA, SANJAY KAROL

body2010
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 7.9.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No.6 of 1995, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304B & 306 IPC. 2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Smt.Chhaya Devi was married to Ashok Kumar son of the two accused Dharam Singh and Smt.Bissan Devi. This marriage took place in the year 1987. From this wedlock two sons were born. The husband of the deceased was serving in the Army. It is not disputed that on 22nd June, 1993 the deceased Smt.Chhaya Devi consumed pesticide and committed suicide. 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased was forced to commit suicide on account of the fact that the accused persons were harassing and ill-treating the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry and were making repeated demands of dowry. This, according to the prosecution, is what forced her to consume poison and end her life. 4. After Chhaya Devi consumed poison she was taken to the District Hospital, Hamirpur and the Medical Officer immediately informed the police, and on receipt of this information ASI Vijay Kumar, PW-13 went to the Hospital and recorded the dying declaration Ext.PD wherein the deceased allegedly stated that she had consumed poison as she was being harassed by her in-laws for not brining sufficient dowry. This statement was purported to have been made in front of Dr.B.K. Gautam PW-7. Smt.Chhaya Devi unfortunately expired at 7 p.m. on the same date. Thereafter, the entire investigation was done and the accused were challaned for having committed the offences mentioned hereinabove. After trial the accused have been acquitted and hence this appeal. 5. The prosecution has tried to prove its case by leading oral and documentary evidence. As far as the oral testimony is concerned none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution. For reasons best known to them even the mother (PW-1) and brother (PW-2) of the deceased turned hostile. They while deposing in the Court stated in no uncertain terms that no demand of dowry was ever made by the accused. In fact both of them stated that Chhaya Devi was living happily in her marital home. Both of them have been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. Nothing material has come out in their cross examination. In fact both of them stated that Chhaya Devi was living happily in her marital home. Both of them have been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross examined by the Public Prosecutor. Nothing material has come out in their cross examination. In fact both of these witnesses state that they, when in need of money, used to borrow money from the accused and when the accused were in need of money they used to borrow money from them. The other witnesses, that is, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-8 have also not supported the prosecution case. 6. The other evidence is the so called dying declaration made by the deceased, relevant portion of which reads as follows: “Stated that I belong to Village Kotlu. Today on 22.6.1993, I had consumed the pesticide meant to keep in the grains at about 12-0’ clock, because I am not happy with the family of my in-laws as they use to torture me for dowry and for that reason, I have consumed the pesticides meant for the grains. When I took the pesticide, at that time, my husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law had gone outside for work.” 7. In this dying declaration, it is recorded that the deceased consumed pesticide because she was not happy with the family of her in-laws as they used to torture her for dowry. This is the only ground of ill-treatment ascribed to the accused. This portion of the statement is not supported by the oral testimony of the mother and brother of the deceased. Dowry is demanded from the family of the wife and none from her family has supported this version. We are also of the considered view that the evidence led by the prosecution does not show that there was any demand of dowry. 8. The Apex Court, in a number of cases, has held that dowry is a demand relating to the marriage ceremony. In this case, even if the prosecution version is believed, the demands related to money required for construction of verandah, purchase of buffalo, atta, chaki etc. These demands cannot be termed as demand for dowry. 9. According to PW-7, Dr.B.K. Gautam, when he inquired from the deceased as to why she had consumed pesticide she did not make any complaint about her in-laws but only stated that she wanted to end her life. These demands cannot be termed as demand for dowry. 9. According to PW-7, Dr.B.K. Gautam, when he inquired from the deceased as to why she had consumed pesticide she did not make any complaint about her in-laws but only stated that she wanted to end her life. The Doctor was the first person to whom she talked and if she could make statement later, there is no reason why she could not make a statement at that stage and inform the Doctor that she was forced to commit suicide because of the ill-treatment meted out to her by her in-laws on account of bringing insufficient dowry. 10. There is no explanation as to why no Magistrate was associated with the recording of the so called dying declaration. We are dealing here with a case where the statement was recorded by the police in the District Hospital at Hamirpur. There are a large number of Judicial and Executive Magistrates available at Hamirpur. It has come in the evidence that the distance from the Hospital to the Court is less than one kilometer. There is nothing which prevented the police officials from calling a Magistrate to record the statement. In fact it is apparent that no attempt was made to associate a Magistrate with the recording of such a statement. This also casts a doubt on the veracity of this statement. 11. Another important factor is that, according to the prosecution witnesses themselves, when the so called dying declaration was recorded, the sister-in-law (husband’s sister) was present in the Hospital. If the dying declaration was recorded in her presence why her signatures were not obtained on the same. Assuming that she being a daughter of the accused, would not have supported the prosecution, then also it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to have mentioned her name. The learned Court below, after going through the case diaries, has found that neither the name of this lady (sister-in-law of the deceased) nor the factum of trying to contact the Magistrate have been mentioned anywhere in the case diaries. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on this dying declaration. 12. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.