Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 859 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Dassu Ram alias Dass Ram

2012-11-21

R.B.MISRA, V.K.SHARMA

body2012
Judgment R.B. Misra, J. The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 11.10.2006, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.24/02, 26/2005, acquitting the accused / respondents for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story is that Neelam Kumari, deceased daughter of Bhagat Ram (PW-1) and Champa Devi (PW-6), was married with accused Rajesh Kumar on 11.12.1998. Initially for six months, the matrimonial life was comfortable but thereafter accused Dassu Ram alias Dass Ram and Rukmani Devi started demanding Rs.70,000/- from Neelam Kumari and in that respect started harassing the deceased and on 7.1.2002 accused Dassu Ram came to the house of PW-1 and stayed there during night and next morning enquired from PW-1 about the demand of Rs.70,000/- at which PW-1 told accused Dassu Ram that he was not in a position to meet such demand. On 14.1.2002, such demand was also made and on 21.1.2002 deceased came to the house of her parents and told that accused persons were pressing for Rs.70,000/-. On 18.1.2002 the deceased was beaten by accused Dassu Ram and Rukmani Devi and thereafter the deceased went to the house of her parents and told Bhagat Ram (PW-1) and Champa Devi (PW-6) about such beatings. On 19.1.2002, PW-1, along with his brother Jagat Ram and one Prema Ram, went to the house of the accused along with Neelam Kumari, where accused Rukmani Devi gave beating to her in the presence of PW-1 and when Ward Member was summoned, he advised PW-1 to take back the Neelam Kumari to his house. On 20.1.2002, PW-1, along with Sunita Devi (PW-3), went to the house of the accused and on reaching there, they met accused Rajesh Kumar who told that his parents had been insulted for demand of Rs.70,000/- and he would take divorce from the deceased. The deceased went inside the matrimonial house from where she was dragged and beaten by accused Dassu Ram and Rukmani Devi, at which deceased went away and could not be located. PW-1 and PW-3 received a telephonic message, at about 5:30 PM on 20.1.2002, that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping in the Sutlej river. The deceased went inside the matrimonial house from where she was dragged and beaten by accused Dassu Ram and Rukmani Devi, at which deceased went away and could not be located. PW-1 and PW-3 received a telephonic message, at about 5:30 PM on 20.1.2002, that the deceased had committed suicide by jumping in the Sutlej river. F.I.R. (Ext.PW-1/A) was recorded by Inspector Brijesh Sood (PW-9) and recovered a pair of ‘Chappal’ from Dehar bridge vide memo Ext.PW-4/A in the presence of Kanta Devi (PW-4). Despite search, dead body of deceased could not be recovered. On finalization of investigation, accused / respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses, whereas, the accused / respondents, through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case and in defence have adduced three witnesses. 4. Bhagat Ram (PW-1), the father of the victim Neelam Kumari / deceased, has stated that Neelam Kumari was married to accused Rajesh on 11.12.1998. Accused Dassu Ram came to his house on 7.1.2002 and stayed there during night and in the morning he enquired from PW-1 about the demand of Rs.70,000/- at which he replied that he was not in a position to meet such demand. On 14.1.2002 also, accused Dassu Ram again inquired from PW-1 about the demand of Rs.70,000/- telephonically. On 17.1.2002, victim came to the house of her parents and told that the accused were pressing for Rs.70,000/- and they have told that in case of failure to meet their demand she would be ousted from the house. PW-1 sent the victim to the house of her in-laws. On 18.1.2002, the victim was beaten by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and thereafter the victim came to the house of PW-1 and apprised about the beatings given to her. On 19.1.2002, PW-1, along with his brother Jagat Ram and one Prema Ram, went to the house of the accused accompanied by victim and at that time all the rooms of the house of the accused were found locked, whereas, accused Rukmani Devi was in the house of her brother-in-law (Devar), namely, Ram Dass and accused Rukmani Devi gave beatings to the victim in the presence of PW-1 and thereafter PW-1 went to call Ward Member, who, after coming to the spot, advised PW-1 to take back his daughter to his home. PW-1 has further stated that at the instance of victim on 20.1.2002, PW-1, along with victim, again went to the house of the accused and when victim went inside the house, accused Dassu Ram and Rukmani Devi gave beatings to her and dragged her out of the house in the presence of PW-1. Thereafter, victim went away and could not be located. PW-1 has stated that thereafter he went to the house of his sister Sunita Devi (PW-3) at Sundernagar and at about 5:30 PM on 20.1.2002 PW-1 received a telephonic message from his son, namely, Sheetal Kumar (PW-5) that the victim had jumped into river from Dehar bridge. As stated by PW-1, in cross-examination that on 17.1.2002 the victim came to his house at about 4:00 PM, on 18.1.2002 went to the house of her in-laws at 10:00 AM and returned back to the house of PW-1 at 5:00 PM on the same day and on 19.1.2002 PW-1, along with others, went to the house of accused Dassu Ram at about 6:00 PM in the evening. PW-1 has further stated in his cross-examination that he went to Sundernagar from the house of the accused on 20.1.2002 when victim left the house of the accused at about 2:30 PM. As stated by PW-1 in cross-examination that victim had no issue, however, had denied the suggestion that the victim was treated in the temple of ‘Drodi Mata’ and ‘Baba Wari Wala’. PW-1, has, however, also stated in the cross-examination that there are many houses near the house of the accused but PW-1 could not name any person of the locality who had seen the beatings given to the victim / deceased by the accused on 19.1.2002 and 20.1.2002 and no panchayat was held prior to such incidence regarding demand of dowry. PW-1 had never reported to the police or to the Panchayat about the harassment of the deceased by the accused. PW-1 has also denied the suggestion that due to mental ailment, deceased used to leave the house of her in-laws without intimating anyone. PW-1, in his cross-examination, has also stated that he did not know that his son was also informed once telephonically by the accused about the late arrival of his daughter (victim / deceased) to her house. PW-1 has also denied the suggestion that due to mental ailment, deceased used to leave the house of her in-laws without intimating anyone. PW-1, in his cross-examination, has also stated that he did not know that his son was also informed once telephonically by the accused about the late arrival of his daughter (victim / deceased) to her house. PW-1 has also shown his ignorance that the victim came to his house without intimating her parents-in-law but has admitted that on 18.1.2002 the victim came back to her in-laws house in a routine manner at 11-12 PM, however, has denied the suggestion that on coming back of the victim to her in-laws house, her mother-in-law asked the victim that she should leave the house with her permission and should not go without asking them. PW-1 has also denied the suggestion that he and his brother rebuked the victim / deceased for her conduct in the presence of inhabitants of the locality on 20.1.2002 and has categorically accepted that when the victim / deceased did not return to her house then on the fateful day of 20.1.2002 all started searching for her and PW-1 has also stated that he, along with PW-3, went to the house of Sunita (PW-3) from the house of accused where he received a message about the jumping of the victim / deceased into the river. PW-1 has, however, denied the suggestion that victim / deceased committed suicide due to her snubbing by PW-1 and his family membeRs. 5. PW-2/(Chaman Lal) has stated that on 20.1.2002, at about 5:30 PM, in his presence the victim / deceased jumped into Sutlej river from the bridge and on raising the alarm, many persons gathered there. 6. PW-3/(Smt.Sunita Devi – Bua of victim), in her endeavour to support the prosecution case, has stated that the victim was married with accused Rajesh and one week prior to her death when the victim had come to her, had told her that parents-in-law of the victim were harassing her and demanding Rs.70,000/- and they had threatened to oust her from their house in case of her failure to do so. PW-3 has further stated that on 19.1.2002, PW-1, Prem Lal and Jagat Ram, along with victim / deceased, went to the house of accused Dassu Ram alias Dass Ram and in the evening the victim / deceased returned to the house of PW-3. PW-3 has further stated that on 19.1.2002, PW-1, Prem Lal and Jagat Ram, along with victim / deceased, went to the house of accused Dassu Ram alias Dass Ram and in the evening the victim / deceased returned to the house of PW-3. On 20.1.2002, in the morning, the victim / deceased gave a telephonic call to the house of the accused and she was told that her husband had met with an accident. Thereafter, PW-3, along with her brother Bhagat Ram (PW-1) and the victim / deceased, went to the house of the accused where accused Dassu Ram asked them to take back the deceased to their house and when the deceased went inside the house, then she was beaten and dragged by accused Dassu Ram and Rukmani. PW-3 has further stated that accused Rajesh also told that he did not want to keep the deceased in his house. Thereafter, the victim / deceased went away and PW-3 and others were told by accused that the deceased had gone to give a telephonic call. Thereafter, PW-3 and others returned to their house and a telephonic message was received in the evening that the deceased had jumped into the river. PW-3 has stated in her cross-examination that she reached the house of the accused on 20.1.2002 at about 12:30 PM and kept standing in the court-yard of the house of the accused and PW-3 received the message about jumping of the deceased into the river while she was in the house of the accused. PW-3 further stated in her cross-examination that she received the message at about 5:30 PM. PW-3 has also stated in her cross-examination that her house is at a distance of about 1 kilometer from the house of the accused and the victim / deceased used to disclose frequently about the beatings given to her, however, PW-3 has not stated to the police about such disclosure made by the victim / deceased. PW-3 has denied the suggestion that the victim / deceased used to leave her matrimonial house without permission of her parents-in-law and used to return to her house late in the evening. PW-3 has also denied the suggestion that her brother was told about such facts by the accused. PW-3 has also stated that none of the inhabitants of the locality were present when victim / deceased was given beatings on 20.1.2002. 7. PW-3 has also denied the suggestion that her brother was told about such facts by the accused. PW-3 has also stated that none of the inhabitants of the locality were present when victim / deceased was given beatings on 20.1.2002. 7. PW-4/(Smt.Kanta Devi) has witnessed the recovery of a pair of ‘Chappal’ from Dehar bridge vide memo Ext.PW-4/A. PW-5/(Sheetal Kumar – the brother of the victim / deceased), in support of the prosecution case, has stated that on 20.1.2002, at about 5:30 PM, Chaman Lal informed PW-5 about the suicide by the victim / deceased by jumping into the Sutlej river from Dehar bridge and PW-5 came there and witnessed the drowning of Neelam Kumari / victim, however, could not save the victim because of the heavy current in the river. Thereafter, PW-5 gave a telephonic message to Sunita Devi (PW-3) sister of his father. 8. PW-6/(Smt.Champa Devi ), in support of the prosecution case, has stated that on 17.1.2002 victim / deceased came to her house and told her that the accused were demanding Rs.70,000/- from them and on second day the victim / deceased again came to her house and told that she was beaten by the accused, however, she was again sent back to her house and on 18.1.2002 PW-6 saw that she was badly beaten by the accused and she again repeated the demand of the accused persons. PW-6 has further stated in her cross-examination that she did not get the victim / deceased treated and examined from any doctor when she had been beaten by the accused persons. PW-6 has, however, denied the suggestion that the victim / deceased used to leave the house of the accused with her own wish without asking them and has also denied the suggestion that the accused persons complained to PW-6 and her husband (PW-1) about the behaviour of the victim / deceased and her late coming to the house in the night. 9. PW-9 (Inspector Brijesh Sood) has recorded the F.I.R. Ext.PW-1/A and had got recovered a pair of ‘Chappal’ Ext.PW-4/A. 10. Accused Dassu Ram in answer to question No.23 has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that “I am innocent. 9. PW-9 (Inspector Brijesh Sood) has recorded the F.I.R. Ext.PW-1/A and had got recovered a pair of ‘Chappal’ Ext.PW-4/A. 10. Accused Dassu Ram in answer to question No.23 has stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that “I am innocent. In fact, the deceased has been leaving our house of her own without asking us and on 17.1.2002 she has come to drop the lunch box in my office and after that she left for her father’s house without telling us and came on next day and on this my wife asked her not to go without telling them. On this she gave beating to my wife and again left for her parents house and next day her father and some other relation along with the Ward Member came to my house and I narrated all the things to them and asked them to teach her good manners and then sent her to our house. As such, they left my house and again came back on next day. Next day the father and uncle snubbed the deceased and on this she left the house and the other relation continued to sit in our house and then in the evening time we all came to know that the deceased has jumped into Sutlej river and after that the father and other relation of the deceased left our house and manipulated a false case.” Similar reply was also given by accused Rukmani Devi in her statement in response to question No.23 in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 11. Accused Rajesh Kumar, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while answering Question No.23, has stated that the deceased used to leave the house of his parents of her own without asking them and for that his mother asked her to leave the house with permission and on this she gave beating to his mother and left the matrimonial house and next day the victim came with her father and other relation then the entire things were made clear to her father and other relation and asked them that she should mend her behaviour and she was also snubbed by her father and other relations and on their snubbing the victim / deceased left the parental house. 12. 12. DW-1/(Devinder Kumar), a Councilor of the Municipal Committee, Sundernagar, has stated that on 19.1.2002, PW-1 came to his house and on his request he accompanied him and went to the house of accused Dassu Ram and that time accused Rukmani Devi was also in the house where victim / deceased was also present there along with 3 – 4 persons. On asking by DW-1, accused Dassu Ram apprised him that yesterday there was a dispute of deceased Neelam Kumari and accused Rukmani Devi and victim Neelam Kumari had given beating to accused Rukmani Devi. DW-1 has further stated that the victim / deceased used to leave their house without their consent and permission. Accused Dassu Ram told them that they should tell their daughter to reside properly in their house and only then they will keep her. DW-1 has further stated that prior to this incident, no complaint was made to DW-1 by any person that the deceased was in any manner harassed for dowry by the accused persons. DW-1 has, however, in his cross-examination, stated that no beating was given to victim in his presence by accused Rukmani Devi and accused Rukmani Devi had also not complained about her beating to DW-1. 13. DW-2/(Lalit), in support of the defence, has stated that on 20.1.2002, at about 12 – 1 PM, victim / Neelam Kumari, along with her father, uncle, one lady and another person, came to the house of the accused persons where accused Dassu Ram told the father of the deceased that the victim should not misbehave and maltreat accused Rukmani Devi and she should respect the elderly persons and on this, the father and uncle of the victim advised the victim not to do such type of behaviour with her in-laws and also snubbed her for her behaviour. On this, the victim / deceased left the house of the accused persons and the other persons continue to sit in the premises of the accused persons where they had been provided tea etc. On this, the victim / deceased left the house of the accused persons and the other persons continue to sit in the premises of the accused persons where they had been provided tea etc. and after at about 4:00 PM when the victim / deceased did not turn up then Gopal Dass (uncle of the deceased) and one Amit went in search of the victim towards Jalpa temple where she could not be traced and at about 5:30 PM when the father, uncle and the other persons were going back then they were intimated by someone that telephone message has been received from Dehar that the victim / deceased has jumped into the river. 14. DW-3/(Amit), in support of the defence, has stated that on 17.1.2002 the victim had gone to deliver the lunch box to accused Dassu Ram to his office in Post Office, Sundernagar and she returned on 18.1.2002 at about 2 – 2:30 PM next day. On her arriaval, the victim was asked by accused Rukmani Devi that where she was sent to deliver the lunch and she was returning after a day and on this the victim / deceased started abusing and scuffling with accused Rukmani Devi and after that she again returned back to her parental house and on next day at about 4 – 5 PM victim Neelam Kumari came with her father, uncle, some other relations and Member Panchayat was also with them. Accused Dassu Ram had also reached in his house from his office and told her parents that the victim was misbehaving and maltreating her in-laws and leaving the house without asking them. On next day, the victim / deceased again came with her father, uncle and ‘Bua’ and some other persons to the house of accused persons at 12 P.M. They were offered chairs and accused Dassu Ram narrated the entire behaviour of their daughter to them. On this, the father and uncle of the victim snubbed her and asked her to live properly in her in-laws house and not to repeat such type of activity in future, upon which the victim / deceased left the house of the accused persons whereas other members remained sitting in the premises of the accused where they were offered tea. When the victim did not turn up, she was searched in the vicinity. 15. When the victim did not turn up, she was searched in the vicinity. 15. On perusal of F.I.R. Ext.PW-1/A, it appears that there are no allegations of ill-treatment of the deceased by accused Rajesh Kumar – the husband of the victim except that on 20.1.2002 accused Rajesh Kumar gave beatings to deceased when deceased was taken to the house of the accused by PW-1 and at that time PW-1 was accompanied by his sister Smt.Sunita Devi, Prema Ram and Jagat Ram and accused Rajesh Kumar also threatened the victim to give divorce. PW-1, (Bhagat Ram - the father of the victim) has nowhere stated that the victim / deceased was given beatings by accused Rajesh Kumar on 20.1.2002 but on the other hand PW-1 has stated that on 20.1.2002 accused Rajesh Kumar met them in the court-yard of his house and told that his parents has been insulted for demand of Rs.70,000/- and, therefore, he would take divorce from the victim / deceased. The statement of PW-1, given in cross-examination, also does not reveal that PW-1 has disclosed such fact to the police while reporting the matter vide Ext.PW-1/A, as such, the statement of PW-1 that accused Rajesh Kumar threatened to take divorce from the victim by alleging that her parents have been insulted for demand of Rs.70,000/- is an improvement made by PW-1. PW-3 has also not stated anything that accused Rajesh Kumar has given beating to victim / deceased on 20.1.2002. Nothing is emanating from the testimony of PW-3 that accused Rajesh Kumar has insulted his parents for the demand of Rs.70,000/- and, therefore, he want to take divorce from the victim. In our considered view, the version of PW-1 that accused Rajesh Kumar threatened to take divorce from the deceased on the ground that his parents have been insulted for Rs.70,000/- does not find corroboration from the testimony of Sunita Devi (PW-3) who is the only other witness examined by the prosecution to support its version. Single instance of PW-1 that on 20.1.2002 accused Rajesh Kumar threatened to take divorce from the victim / deceased cannot be said to be sufficient to conclude that accused Rajesh Kumar has treated deceased Neelam Kumari with cruelty as defined in explanation attached to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Single instance of PW-1 that on 20.1.2002 accused Rajesh Kumar threatened to take divorce from the victim / deceased cannot be said to be sufficient to conclude that accused Rajesh Kumar has treated deceased Neelam Kumari with cruelty as defined in explanation attached to Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Nothing has been brought on record to establish that accused Rajesh Kumar has beaten the victim for demand of dowry, as such, accused Rajesh Kumar has rightly been held not guilty for the offence under Section 498-A by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi. The fact of demand of dowry, as stated by PW-1, during the visit of accused Dassu Ram to his house on 7.1.2002, 14.1.2002 and 17.1.2002 and regarding beating the victim / deceased on 18.1.2002 and 19.1.2002 was not reported to the police or any other independent person of the locality or to Gram Panchayat. PW-1, PW-6 and PW-3, being closely related witnesses, have made allegations regarding ill-treatment / harassment of the victim / deceased and for beating her for non fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs.70,000/- but such facts were not reported to any of the independent person of the locality or village or Gram Pradhan or the police. It also cannot be believed that abruptly after about three years, demand of dowry was made by the accused persons and no instance was indicated as to when the demand of dowry was made by accused Rajesh Kumar. No specific allegation was made by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 that accused Rajesh Kumar has given beatings in respect of demand of dowry. As per testimony of PW-6, the demand of dowry came to her knowledge only on 17.1.2002 and prior to that the staying of accused Dassu Ram in the house of PW-1 and subsequent demand of dowry was also not narrated by PW-6. No report of any kind was given to anyone, moreso, in view of the testimony of PW-6 made in her cross-examination, she did not get the deceased Neelam Kumari treated and examined from any doctor when the victim was said to be beaten by the accused persons. Nothing is emanating from the testimony of PW-5 that his sister was maltreated or beaten or any demand of dowry was made by the accused Dassu Ram alias Dass Ram and Rukmani Devi. 16. Nothing is emanating from the testimony of PW-5 that his sister was maltreated or beaten or any demand of dowry was made by the accused Dassu Ram alias Dass Ram and Rukmani Devi. 16. In view of the testimony of Sunita Devi (PW-3), she was informed by victim Neelam Kumari one week prior to her death i.e. on 20.1.2002 that parents-in-law of victim were demanding Rs.70,000/- and they were threatening to oust her from their house in case of her failure to do so, whereas, according to PW-1 and PW-6 such facts were disclosed by the victim / deceased on 17.1.2002 and the victim died on 20.1.2002, as such, the statement of PW-3 appears to be an improvement over the version as recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It seems improbable when victim was being beaten by accused Rukmani Devi in the house of her in-laws on 19.1.2002 in the presence of PW-1, Jagat Ram and one Prema Ram then PW-1 and others would not have saved the victim / deceased. It also cannot be believed that when in the presence of PW-1 and PW-3 on 20.1.2002 the victim was dragged by accused Dassu Ram and Rukmani Devi and was beaten by them, then they did not try to save her. 17. The version of defence appears to be probable as emanating from the testimony of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3 that it was victim / deceased who insulted accused Rukmani Devi and in the presence of DW-1 the father and relatives of the victim had snubbed the victim for misbehaving with her in-laws. The leaving of the house of the in-laws by the victim on 20.1.2002 also cannot be said to be at the instance of the accused persons. In view of the statement of PW-1, made in cross-examination, that on 20.1.2002 he was accompanied by victim, his sister and has denied that Jagat Ram and Prema Ram were also with him even on 20.1.2002, however, such version of PW-1 is contrary to the version as reported vide Ext.PW-1/A in which PW-1 has stated that Jagat Ram and Prema Ram were also accompanying him on 20.1.2002. PW-1 has more categorically denied in cross-examination that Jagat Ram and Prema Ram were accompanying him on 20.1.2002. PW-1 has more categorically denied in cross-examination that Jagat Ram and Prema Ram were accompanying him on 20.1.2002. Similarly, PW-3 has stated that no other person was present on 20.1.2002 when deceased was beaten by accused Dassu Ram and Rukmani Devi and thus in view of such material contradiction and discrepancy emanating from the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 and the version as reported vide Ext.PW-1/A, statements of PW-1 and PW-3 cannot be relied upon. 18. Though it has been argued on behalf of the State in view of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal versus Orilal Jaiswal & Another, (1994) 1 SCC 73 that testimony of close relations i.e. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 cannot be discarded simply on the ground of absence of corroboration by independent witnesses and on behalf of the appellant / State it has vehemently been argued that in view of the observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) in Paragraph-14 that testimonies of related witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 are worthy of credence and on their statements alone the allegation of demand of dowry of Rs.70,000/- by the accused persons is taken to be proved. For convenience, Para-14 of Orilal Jaiswal (supra) is extracted as below:- “… ….The High Court has expressed doubts about the genuineness of the case of physical torture and abuses made by the husband and the deceased for the absence of any Independent evidence given by the neighbours and cotenants about such physical assault or the abuses hurled on the wife by the accused. We have indicated that ordinarily it is not expected that physical torture or the abuses hurled on the wife by the husband and the mother-in-law should be made in such a way as to be noticed by the tenants living in the adjoining portions of the house. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was physically assaulted so violently that the neighbours came to know about such assault. It is also not the case that abuses used to be hurled loudly so that the tenants had occasions to hear them. It was therefore not necessary to examine neighbour or tenants to prove the prosecution case. In the instant case, the evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother, elder brother and other close relations. It was therefore not necessary to examine neighbour or tenants to prove the prosecution case. In the instant case, the evidence about physical and mental torture of the deceased has come from the mother, elder brother and other close relations. Such depositions by close relations, who may be interested in the prosecution of the accused, need not be discarded simply on the score of the absence of corroboration by independent witness. Whether the evidence of interested witness is worthy of credence is to be judged in the special facts of the case. In our view, the acts of cruelty by the accused were expected to be known by the very close relations like mother, brother, sister, etc. The evidence of the mother has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge as worthy of credence and we do not think that the same should be discarded in the facts of the case.” In view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra versus Tulsiram Bhanudas Kamble, AIR 2007 SC 3042 , Sudershan Reddy versus State of A.P., AIR 2006 SC 2616, Amzad Ali versus State of Assam, (2003) SCC 270 and Sucha Singh versus State of Punjab, (2003) 7 SCC 643 , the testimonies of witness in criminal trial cannot be discarded merely because the witness is a relative or family member of the victim. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thoti Manohar Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, (2012) 7 SCC 723 has observed that testimonies of related witnesses, even family members and close relatives, if are natural and their version is consistent and nothing is suggested to bring any kind of inherent improbabilities in their testimonies, as such, the testimonies of related or interested witnesses are not to be rejected. 19. It has vehemently been argued on behalf of the State that the demand of dowry by the accused, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is to be taken to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in view of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan versus State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , the relevant paragraphs of which are referred as below:- “13. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in last few yeaRs. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in last few yeaRs. Cases are frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in Court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished. 14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 _ quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271 ). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him. 15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.” 20. We also notice that in view of the testimony of DW-1/(Devinder Singh) there was no complaint of ill-treatment or harassment of the deceased by the accused on account of demand of dowry. In view of the statement of DW-2 (Lalit) nothing is emanating that the deceased was maltreated or was beaten on account of demand of dowry and there is nothing to disbelieve the credibility of the statement of DW-1 and DW-2. There is nothing to show that DW-1 and DW-2 were biased or inimical against the complainant or the deceased. In view of the statement of DW-2 (Lalit) nothing is emanating that the deceased was maltreated or was beaten on account of demand of dowry and there is nothing to disbelieve the credibility of the statement of DW-1 and DW-2. There is nothing to show that DW-1 and DW-2 were biased or inimical against the complainant or the deceased. We also take note of the fact that Sheetal Kumar (PW-5) had not corroborated the aspect of harassment or ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused persons on account of demand of dowry. The allegations of demand of dowry or harassment or ill-treatment of the deceased by the accused were never reported to anyone during the life time of the deceased either by the deceased or by her parents and such allegations were levelled for the first time after the deceased has committed suicide. 21. Learned counsel for the defence, in reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma & Another versus Monica, (2009) 10 SCC 604 , has stated that the prosecution was to prove that the accused persons had coerced the victim to meet any demand on account of dowry and have committed act / conduct of such nature which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, as such, the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was not proved against the accused / respondents. 22. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar versus State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 487 , learned counsel for the defence has stated that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the defence version is probable, as such, there is no occasion to disbelieve the defence version, moreso, when the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of dowry in terms of the statements of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6. 23. The allegations against the accused persons cannot be said to be proved in the absence of abetment of the deceased as the accused persons had not instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide. There was nothing on the part of the accused persons directly or indirectly or nothing has been done on the part of the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. 24. There was nothing on the part of the accused persons directly or indirectly or nothing has been done on the part of the accused which led the deceased to commit suicide. 24. In view of the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nachhattar Singh & Others versus State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 542 , the learned counsel for the defence has argued that the conduct of the accused should be of such nature as would provoke a person of common prudence to commit suicide. 25. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that there is absence of abetment on the part of the accused persons, as such, the offence under Section 306 IPC has not been proved against the accused persons. There is no convincing and satisfactory evidence on record qua the ill-treatment or harassment of the deceased by the accused, as such, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code that the victim was in any way harassed, maltreated or any kind of cruelty was meted out to her by the accused persons for the demand of dowry. 26. So far as the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove that soon before the death of the victim, she was meted out harassment and cruelty by the accused persons and such harassment and cruelty was for and in connection with demand on account of dowry. In our considered view, the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, has rightly arrived at a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused and such harassment and cruelty was for and in connection with demand for dowry and such harassment and cruelty have been meted out to the deceased soon before her death and the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased by the accused in connection with demand for dowry has not been found to be reliable and worthy of credence. In the facts and circumstances, there is no scope for interference in the judgment and verdict arrived at by the learned trial Court, therefore, the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents are hereby discharged.