Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 857 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Judhia Devi

2010-06-03

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
Rajiv Sharma, J (oral). 1. A challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 25.4.1996 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in sessions case No. 5-K (VIII)/96, whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable, under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Smt. Indira Devi was married to Deepak Kumar about three years back prior to the incident. She remained for about three years in the house of her in-laws. She was subjected to cruelty by her mother-in-law and Jethani Smt. Rita Devi for bringing insufficient dowry. She consumed some poisonous substance on 24.9.1993. She started vomiting. She was taken to Nagrota Hospital by her husband. She expired. Nagrota Police was informed by the doctor on telephone. ASI Prem Chand reached the Hospital alongwith one Head Constable and preferred an application to record the statement when Indira Devi was unconscious. Doctor opined that she was not in a position to make statement. Thereafter statement of Maya Devi (PW-1) was recorded under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vide Ex.PW-2/A. FIR was registered on the basis of Ex.PW-2/A. Inquest report was prepared vide Ex.PW-11/C. Post mortem was conducted by PW-1 Dr. B.C. Khanna. He opined that cause of death was aluminium phosphide poisoning resulting in pulmonary oedema and congestion of internal organs and this was sufficient to cause the death in the natural course of events. After the investigation of the case, challan was put up in the Court after completing codal formalities, under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. Respondents were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent Judhia admitted that deceased was her daughter-in-law but she denied other allegations that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. She also stated that her relations with the parents of the deceased were cordial. Similar plea was taken by respondent Reeta Devi. 4. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents-accused. 5. Mr. V.S. Rathore has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Dr. Similar plea was taken by respondent Reeta Devi. 4. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents-accused. 5. Mr. V.S. Rathore has supported the judgment of the learned trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Dr. B.C. Khanna has conducted the post mortem on the body of Indira Devi alongwith his companion Dr. V.P. Mahajan. He has admitted that aluminium phosphide was consumed by Indira Devi. He also admitted that aluminium phosphide is easily available in the houses of farmers because it is used as insecticides for agricultural produce. 8. PW-2 Maya Devi is the mother of deceased Indira Devi. She deposed that her daughter was married to Deepak Kumar about three years back prior to incident. Whenever she used to visit her house, she used to complain against her mother-in-law and Jethani that she was being treated with cruelty by them for bringing insufficient dowry. She then stated that Dinesh Kumar (PW-4) went to the house of accused on the occasion of birth of the son of deceased about 8-9 days prior to the occurrence. According to her, a person from the in-laws of the deceased came to her house and informed that deceased has consumed some poisonous substance and she has been shifted to Nagrota Hospital. She went to Nagrota Hospital. Her statement Ex.PW-2/A was recorded. 9. PW-3 is Smt. Roshani Devi. She deposed that she worked in the house of PW-2 Maya Devi. She stated that as and when Indira Devi used to come to her house, she used to complain about the maltreatment meted to her by the respondents. 10. PW-4 Dinesh Kumar is brother of deceased. He also stated that his sister was being ill-treated by the respondents for bringing insufficient dowry. He also deposed that when he visited the house of respondents on 19.9.1993 on the occasion of birth of a son, respondent Judhia Devi questioned as to what articles he has brought for them. Thereafter he went to the nearby shop and brought three handkerchief & Nariyal and offered the same to the respondents. 11. PW-5 is Prem Dass. He deposed that one person had come to his shop and purchased three handkerchiefs and a Nariyal. 12. PW-10 is Amin Chand. Thereafter he went to the nearby shop and brought three handkerchief & Nariyal and offered the same to the respondents. 11. PW-5 is Prem Dass. He deposed that one person had come to his shop and purchased three handkerchiefs and a Nariyal. 12. PW-10 is Amin Chand. He has deposed that on receipt of Rukka Ex.PW-2/A, he recorded FIR Ex.PW-10/A. The investigation was carried out by PW-11 Prem Chand, ASI. PW-12 Dilbag Singh, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police has also partly investigated the case. 13. In this case FIR Ex.PW-10/A was registered on the basis of statement of PW-2 Maya Devi, under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no mention in Ex.PW-2/A that respondents ever demanded television or cash or she was subjected to cruelty on account of bringing insufficient dowry. This fact she has narrated in her cross-examination only. PW-4 Dinesh Kumar has deposed that he went to the house of respondents on the occasion of the birth day of a son. He was asked by respondent Judhia Devi what articles he has brought for them. Thereafter he went to the shop and purchased certain items. PW-5 Prem Dass, from whose shop the articles have been purchased, failed to identify PW-4 Dinesh Kumar. Surprisingly, the husband of the deceased has not been associated by the police. It has come in the statement of Prem Chand ASI that deceased was immediately shifted to the hospital by the respondents. It has come in the evidence that one thumb of the foot of the deceased was defected from her childhood and the deceased used to remain upset over this. PW-2 Maya Devi has categorically admitted that no complaint was ever lodged with the Police or Panchayat against the alleged harassment of her daughter. Statement of PW-3 Roshani Devi does not inspire confidence. She has admitted that no payment was being made to her in cash for working at the place of PW-2 Maya Devi. PW-4 Dinesh Kumar has admitted that in the hospital his brother-in-law and his brother were present. The prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was maltreated or subjected to cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. It has not come in the evidence that on which date, month of year, the dowry was demanded by the respondents. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The prosecution has failed to prove that deceased was maltreated or subjected to cruelty for bringing insufficient dowry. It has not come in the evidence that on which date, month of year, the dowry was demanded by the respondents. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused-respondent are ordered to be discharged.