Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 824 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Puran Chand @ Guddu

2012-11-15

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 19.10.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2002, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that Uttam Chand (PW-1), father of deceased Dhuma Devi, has lodged an F.I.R. Ex.-PA. According to the contents of the F.I.R., his daughter was married with accused Puran Chand about 4/5 years back in accordance with Hindu custom and ceremonies. After one year of the marriage, both the accused started maltreating Smt. Dhuma Devi on petty matters. As and when, Dhuma Devi was visiting her parental house, she was complaining about the maltreatment meted to her by the accused. Uttam Chand (PW-1) tried to prevail upon accused Puran Chand not to maltreat Dhuma Devi. However, accused did not change his attitude. On 30.11.2001, at about 9:00 p.m., Kuldip, cousin of complainant Uttam Chand (PW-1), informed him that Dhuma Devi has received burn injuries. He took his younger brother Jiwa Nand with him and went to the house of accused. He found the dead body of his daughter lying in the upper storey in the kitchen of the house of the accused. He enquired from Tara Devi accused about the cause of death, who feigned ignorance about the incident. Puran Chand was also there and on seeing the dead body of his daughter in burnt condition, Uttam Chand (PW-1) became suspicious about the conduct of the accused. He suspected that either his daughter has committed suicide or was murdered by the accused. Shri K.D. Sharma, Inspector/SHO (PW-16) investigated the matter. He visited the spot on 01.12.2001. He took into possession the plastic bottle, Ex.-P13, kerosene oil bottle Ex.-P14 and burnt clothes packet Ex.-P15 vide seizure memo Ex.-PD in the presence of Uttam Chand (PW-1) and Kamal Raj. He prepared the inquest reports Ex.-PD and Ex.-PE. He also prepared the site plan Ex.-PL. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. J.N. Chauhan (PW-15) on 01.12.2001. According to his final opinion, the deceased died due to asphyxia, but the nature of injuries could not be well defined. The police also moved an application Ex.-PJ for clarification of certain points. He prepared the inquest reports Ex.-PD and Ex.-PE. He also prepared the site plan Ex.-PL. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. J.N. Chauhan (PW-15) on 01.12.2001. According to his final opinion, the deceased died due to asphyxia, but the nature of injuries could not be well defined. The police also moved an application Ex.-PJ for clarification of certain points. The doctor gave his reply vide Ex.-PK, according to which, the death was caused by smothering and strangulation. The police put up the challan after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution has examined 16 witnesses to prove its case. The accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused have denied most of the circumstances. Both of them have stated that the deceased was psychotic. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused on 19.10.2005. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 5. PW-1, Uttam Chand is the father of deceased Dhuma Devi. According to him, Dhuma Devi was married to accused Puran Chand about 4-5 years before her death. For about one year, the relations between deceased Dhuma and accused remained good. When she came to her parental house, she never told anything about the behaviour of the accused. He was declared hostile. However, in his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that he advised accused Puran not to beat or maltreat Dhuma Devi and he agreed to do so. He reported the matter to the Police vide Ex.-PA. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he could not narrate the dates, time, month and year when the accused maltreated her. She has not made any report to this effect. He also admitted that they used to get the deceased treated for giddiness. She used to sing songs loudly, used to open her hair and used to remain depressed. He also stated that after marriage she recovered. The entire village was aware of her ailment. 6. PW-2, Smt. Leela Devi is the sister of deceased Dhuma Devi. She has testified that whenever Dhuma Devi met her after her marriage, she never told her that accused gave her beatings and maltreated her. She was also cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. He also stated that after marriage she recovered. The entire village was aware of her ailment. 6. PW-2, Smt. Leela Devi is the sister of deceased Dhuma Devi. She has testified that whenever Dhuma Devi met her after her marriage, she never told her that accused gave her beatings and maltreated her. She was also cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. She has denied the suggestion that the deceased has told her that after one year of the marriage, she was maltreated and given beatings by the accused persons on petty matters on domestic chores. According to her, the children of the deceased were also living with the accused. She also admitted that her husband and accused Puran Chand were having friendly relations. 7. PW-3, Smt. Dhambo Devi is the mother of deceased Dhuma Devi. She also deposed that nothing was told to her by the deceased about harassment by the accused. She was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She has denied the suggestion in her cross-examination that the accused Puran Chand and Tara used to harass and maltreat her daughter Dhuma Devi. 8. It is, thus, clear that three material witnesses, i.e., PW-1, Sh. Uttam Chand, father of the deceased PW-2, Smt. Leela Devi, sister of the deceased and PW-3, Smt. Dhambo Devi, mother of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution. Now, as far as PW-7, Smt. Kamla Devi and PW-8, Smt. Saraswati Devi are concerned, their statements do not inspire confidence. 9. PW-7, Smt. Kamla Devi has deposed that about two years before her death, Dhuma Devi came to her and told that her family members have given her beatings at night. She also told her that because of the beatings, she remained near a bamboo groove up to 10:00 p.m. and then out of fear, she went to the house of her sister-in-law (Nanad) and in the morning when she went her home, the accused persons did not open the door and thereafter, she had come to her. According to her, she also visited the house of the accused. She made enquiries from the accused persons. She was told that neither Dhuma Devi used to take meals nor used to do any work. She advised both the parties to live cordially. Dhuma Devi again met her about 23 months prior to her death at a bawari. According to her, she also visited the house of the accused. She made enquiries from the accused persons. She was told that neither Dhuma Devi used to take meals nor used to do any work. She advised both the parties to live cordially. Dhuma Devi again met her about 23 months prior to her death at a bawari. She asked her why she has not affixed bindi on her forehead. She told her that the accused persons had asked her not to affix bindi. She also deposed that about 4-5 days before the death of deceased, she heard cries from the house of accused. She enquired about this from sister-in-law (Nanad) of Dhuma. She told her that Dhuma was crying without any reason. In her cross-examination, she could not disclose the year, month or date of the incident when Dhuma Devi went to the groove of bamboos. She also admitted that no beatings were even given to Dhuma Devi in her presence. She also admitted that Dhuma Devi used to remain sad. She also admitted that the facts stated before the Court were told to her by Dhuma Devi on her asking and not of her own. She has also admitted that she has not seen any marks of beating on the person of Dhuma Devi. 10. PW-8, Smt. Saraswati Devi has deposed that Dhuma Devi also met her one month prior to her death. She noticed injuries on her eye and on her asking, she told her that she suffered these injuries by a fall. When she asked her again, she told her that she had been given beatings by the accused persons. According to her, on 30.11.2001, accused Puran Chand had come to her house at about 5:30 p.m. and started taking liquor. Thereafter, Puran Chand left her house and at about 7:30 p.m., he again came to her house. He was nervous and was under intoxication. She told him to go back because they had come to know that Dhuma Devi had died because of burns. She could not narrate the date, month and year of the incident. She also stated that Dhuma Devi was never given beatings in her presence. 11. PW-10, Smt. Satya Devi has deposed that Puran is her brother and Dhuma was married to her brother about five years before her death. She could not narrate the date, month and year of the incident. She also stated that Dhuma Devi was never given beatings in her presence. 11. PW-10, Smt. Satya Devi has deposed that Puran is her brother and Dhuma was married to her brother about five years before her death. According to her, on 30.11.2001, he was present at the house of accused. At about 6/6:30 p.m., they were sitting outside the house. She and her mother had gone inside the house together. She was also declared hostile. Similarly, PW-14, Sh. Devinder Kumar was also declared hostile. 12. The most important witness is PW-15, Dr. J.N. Chauhan. He has conducted the post mortem examination. He has issued post mortem report Ex.-PG. According to him, the deceased died due to asphyxia, but the nature of burn injuries could not be well defined as most of these appeared post mortem in nature and also there was no smoke and sooty particles inphyarynx, larynx and in treachea and the base of the blisters were hard and yellowish. According to him, an application for clarification was given to him on 09.12.2001, i.e., Ex.-PJ. He has given his opinion vide Ex.-PK, according to which, the death was caused by smothering and strangulation because in case of burn injuries, the chance of blood coming out of nostrils was rare and the photographs have shown a pool of blood by the side of the dead body. 13. The investigation was carried out by Sh. K.D. Sharma (PW-16). He visited the spot on 01.12.2001. He prepared the inquest reports Ex.-PD and Ex.-PE. He has sent the body for post mortem examination to Zonal Hospital, Mandi. According to him, initially the case was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Learned trial Court has treated Ex.-DA as report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. In fact, it is seen of the occurrence report. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. We have already noticed that PW-1, Sh. Uttam Chand, father of the deceased PW-2, Smt. Leela Devi, sister of the deceased and PW-3, Smt. Dhambo Devi, mother of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Similarly, PW-10, Smt. Satya Devi and PW-14, Sh. Devinder Kumar have also been declared hostile. We have already noticed that PW-1, Sh. Uttam Chand, father of the deceased PW-2, Smt. Leela Devi, sister of the deceased and PW-3, Smt. Dhambo Devi, mother of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. Similarly, PW-10, Smt. Satya Devi and PW-14, Sh. Devinder Kumar have also been declared hostile. Neither PW-7, Smt. Kamla Devi nor PW-8, Smt. Saraswati Devi have given the exact year, month and the date when they met the deceased. The opinion of PW-15, Dr. J.N. Chauhan is not conclusive. According to Ex.-PG, the deceased died due to asphyxia, but the nature of burn injuries could not be well defined. Thereafter, certain clarifications were sought by the police from him. He replied to the same and stated that the death of the deceased was caused by smothering and strangulation. The prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was maltreated by the accused persons. The prosecution has further failed to prove that the deceased was killed and thereafter put on fire. The prosecution has also failed to prove the motive against the accused. 15. Consequently, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused persons. The learned trial Court after considering the entire evidence, has rightly acquitted the accused. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged.