Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 622 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Singh Rana

2013-07-01

R.B.MISRA, SURINDER SINGH

body2013
Judgment : SURINDER SINGH, J. - 1. The State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial No.58 of 2002, decided on 14.3.2006, by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hence preferred the present appeal. 2. Shri D.C. Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General vehemently argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective. It had wrongly ignored the statements Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. of the witnesses qua demand of dowry and the statement of PW4 Ranbeer Singh, who is alleged to have stated about the maltreatment having been meted out to the deceased by the respondents. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents, hereinafter to be referred as 'the accused persons' supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and further ventilated that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are not worth inspiring confidence and even they were overzealous to implicate the accused persons, as after the dead body of the deceased was handed over they cut its ear and disputed postmortem report and imputed allegations against the police, for shielding the accused persons. The complainant party is alleged to have given this publicity by circulating the posters. When the above allegations were found incorrect FIR No.91/02 dated 5.7.2002 (Ext.DW2/A) under Sections 192, 194, 153-A and 297 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Dalhousie. The complainant party had been facing the trial. Surinder Singh and Vishal Rana accused persons also appeared as witnesses of the prosecution in that case. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. 4. The admitted facts are that deceased Ranjeeta was the daughter of PW1 Dal Bahadur, a Nepali, also an ex-serviceman. They were residents of Dhangu Bridge, Pathankot. Accused Vishal Rana developed intimacy with Ranjeeta aforesaid. In the year 1999 they got married. The function of the marriage/reception was celebrated in the courtyard of the temple adjoining to the house of PW1 Dal Bahadur, which was attended upon by the accused persons as well as their relatives. In that function, according to PW1 Dal Bahadur, he had given some gifts/dowry items to the deceased. In the year 1999 they got married. The function of the marriage/reception was celebrated in the courtyard of the temple adjoining to the house of PW1 Dal Bahadur, which was attended upon by the accused persons as well as their relatives. In that function, according to PW1 Dal Bahadur, he had given some gifts/dowry items to the deceased. PW5 Kaushalaya was the elder sister of the deceased and PW11 Vikas Gurung, brother of the deceased. He was also serving in the army. On 2.5.2002, i.e., within seven years of her marriage she consumed endo-sulphas, an insecticide in the house of her in-laws, thus committed suicide. As the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court, the following are the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court." 5. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court." 5. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. The appellate Court, if on proper analysis of the ratio and findings of the case, finds that the trial Court's findings are based upon fundamental principles of the criminal jurisprudence, no interference is called for. In this behalf reliance can be placed on judgments of the Apex Court rendered in Chandrappa and others v. State of Karnataka, [ (2007) 4 SCC 415 ], Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [ (2008) 10 SCC 450 ], Arulvelu and another v. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and another, [ (2009) 10 SCC 206 ] and Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad [ (2010) 1 SCC 94 ]. 6. After hearing the parties and keeping the above principles of law in mind, we have closely scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution. Pw1 Dal Bahadur, father of the deceased, is the person who had initiated the criminal law into motion. He stated that accused Vishal Rana is in Army and it was his daughter Kaushalya who told him that the accused persons had been maltreating and subjecting his daughter to cruelty and they did not allow her to meet him at Pathankot and even his son Pw11 Vikas Gurung was in the Army. He had come to his native place during 'Rakhi' festival. The deceased visited his house to tie 'Rakhi', but she was being followed by the accused persons, saying that she had left for parental house without their consent and would take her back. The accused persons are also alleged to have threatened to lodge the FIR against the deceased. The deceased was not taken by them to her matrimonial home, however, she had written letters to her husband Vishal Rana, but he did not reply and ultimately she had also informed Commanding Officer (CO) of accused Vishal Rana. The Commanding Officer required joint photograph of deceased and Vishal Rana after attaining the age of 20 years for service record. The deceased was not taken by them to her matrimonial home, however, she had written letters to her husband Vishal Rana, but he did not reply and ultimately she had also informed Commanding Officer (CO) of accused Vishal Rana. The Commanding Officer required joint photograph of deceased and Vishal Rana after attaining the age of 20 years for service record. He further stated that in April, 2001 the accused persons alongwith Pw2 Sheela Thapa, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat came to settle the matter. Even at that time accused Surinder Rana, father-in-law of the deceased, proclaimed that he would not take Ranjeeta to his house in village Kakira. On this, Pradhan aforesaid told them that if they (the accused) would not settle the matter then why she being a responsible person, was brought by them to Pathankot, but however, on the assurance of the Pradhan Pw1 Dal Bahadur allowed the accused persons to take his daughter with them. But soon thereafter accused Surinder Rana refused to take Ranjeeta alongwith them, all of them left the place in the same Van in which they had come to their house. Thereafter Pw1 took and left his daughter at the house of the accused on the same day. He also stated that he had stayed there during the night and returned next morning without informing Pw2 Sheela Pradhan as he was in a hurry. It is further stated by him that on 2.5.2002 accused Surinder Rana alongwith Mohinder visited their house at Pathankot in the private Van and informed that Ranjeeta was seriously ill. She had requested them to come to the hospital at Kakira. On this, he alongwith his wife, Sobha Devi, daughter Kaushalya and neighbour Ranbeer Singh went to Kakira hospital, but instead of taking them to Kakira, they were taken to Dalhousie and accused Surinder Rana informed on the way, that Ranjeeta had died. Then they were taken to hospital Dalhousie, where he identified the dead body of his daughter. According to him, the police did not record his statement on that day. He alleged that his daughter was killed by the accused persons. 7. Then they were taken to hospital Dalhousie, where he identified the dead body of his daughter. According to him, the police did not record his statement on that day. He alleged that his daughter was killed by the accused persons. 7. In cross-examination, he specifically stated that accused persons did not give any beating to the deceased in his presence, but stated that they had given beatings in the presence of his son, but again stated that the beatings were given in the presence of his daughter Kaushalya, who had told him about it, but he did not remember the date. He also did not move any application with regard to the maltreatment of the deceased. Further according to him, PW4 Ranbeer Singh had told him that the accused persons used to give beatings to the deceased. He also stated that the deceased did not complain with regard to the beatings given by the accused during her stay for nine months in his house. 8. Further we did not find in his statement Ext.PA recorded under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure anything about maltreatment or demand of dowry except by making a fleeting reference that on 23.4.2002 PW4 Ranbeer Singh had visited his place and told him that the daughter-in-law of Sheru Pradhan, resident of Shaili-Kulian had informed him that Ranjeeta was sent to the house of her in-laws and the accused persons had been maltreating and giving beatings to her. Pw4 Ranbeer Singh stated that daughter-in-law of Sheru Pradhan had disclosed the above fact to him to which he informed complainant Dal Bahadur and in cross-examination he stated that no conversation with regard to dowry took place in his presence at any time and he even did not know when the marriage between the deceased and accused Vishal Rana had solemnized. Though, he stated that on the aforesaid information he had contacted Dal Bahadur and on 26.4.2002 he alongwith his 'Bhanja' went to village Kakira, but this fact has not been stated by Pw1 when examined in the Court. Though, he stated that on the aforesaid information he had contacted Dal Bahadur and on 26.4.2002 he alongwith his 'Bhanja' went to village Kakira, but this fact has not been stated by Pw1 when examined in the Court. Pertinently, the daughter-in-law of Sheru Pradhan was not examined to substantiate the aforesaid version and even Pw5 Kaushalya, a divorcee daughter of Pw1, who had been residing with her parents for the last 4/5 years from the date of her examination in the Court on 12.4.2004, though stated that she had visited her sister once after the marriage and the behaviour of the accused persons towards her was not good and they used to beat and torture her. But, she stated that the behaviour of her husband with Ranjeeta was cordial, however, he used to demand dowry from them. The accused did not allow Ranjeeta to talk to her nor she was allowed to go outside the matrimonial home. She also stated that the father-in-law of deceased Ranjeeta had come to their house at Pathankot alleging that her deceased sister had stolen ornaments, would not allow her to tie the 'Rakhi' to her brother and would lodge complaint. All these facts as stated by Kaushalya aforesaid were not ignorable and had gone unreported either to the Panchayat or police. But on scrutiny we do not find her version a material one. 9. Pertinently, in this behalf the statement of PW2 Sheela Thapa assumes importance, who was accompanying the accused persons. She stated that the deceased had been living in the house of her parents for the last about nine months and the parents of the deceased did not impute any allegation with regard to the beatings given by the accused persons. She further stated that the police had conducted the proceedings qua the complaint in this case lodged by the father of the deceased, but the deceased had never made any complaint to her with regard to any beating, maltreatment or demand of dowry. She was also examined as a defence witness (DW1). She specifically stated that when she had accompanied the accused persons to Pathankot there was no demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased by the accused persons. He also stated that the deceased used to go Pathankot of her own without telling anyone. She further stated that she was a short-tampered girl. 10. She specifically stated that when she had accompanied the accused persons to Pathankot there was no demand of dowry or harassment to the deceased by the accused persons. He also stated that the deceased used to go Pathankot of her own without telling anyone. She further stated that she was a short-tampered girl. 10. The other witness is PW11 Vikas Gurung, brother of the deceased, who was serving in the army. He stated that after the marriage the deceased used to live in the house of her in-laws at village Bakloh alongwith her husband, who was also in the army. His relations with her deceased wife were cordial. He stated in the year 2001 on the occasion of 'Raksha Bandan' the deceased came to his house at Pathankot and the accused persons had been demanding motorcycle and a freeze. They also gave beatings. Since he was the only earning member in the family, as such he had told his deceased sister not to disclose this fact to her parents as they being poor and ultimately he was to provide all these things to accused persons to which he would arrange during the next vacations, out of his savings. Thereafter he proceeded to his unit and on 5.5.2002 he came to know by telegram that she is dead and the accused persons had killed her for demand of dowry. In cross-examination he stated that he usually remained on duty in the army. According to him, it was a love marriage inter se his sister and accused Vishal Rana. Further, with respect to the demand of dowry and beatings as disclosed to him by the deceased, no FIR or complaint was lodged anywhere. Pw18 SHO Khub Ram stated that initially on the complaint of Pw1 Dal Bahadur police had registered a case under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but after the statement of Pw11 Vikas Gurung Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code was added to it. It is also evident from the statement of DW2 MHC Ramesh Singh that FIR No.91 of 2002 dated 5.7.2002 was registered under Sections 192, 194, 153-A and 297 of the Indian Penal Code against the complainant and his family members for desecrating the dead body by cutting its ear on the basis of which the complainant party had been facing trial. 11. 11. The perusal of the record shows that the statement of PW11 Vikas Gurung under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 6.5.2002, i.e., after lodging FIR No.91 of 2002 against them. Further, FIR lodged by the father of the deceased did not mention any material with respect to the beatings/cruelty or demand of dowry, which affects its credibility. PW2 Sheela Thapa, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, who had accompanied the accused party to the house of parents of deceased at Pathankot, also did not specifically state that there was any allegation of maltreatment or demand of dowry by the accused persons. PW5 Kaushalya stated having spent one month at the matrimonial house of her deceased sister, but very strangely she even did not disclose to her parents about the maltreatment, beatings or demand of dowry on her return, more specifically when she was permanently residing with her parents being divorcee. Even she did not tell the dates of alleged beatings. Even at the time of reception organized by PW1 Dal Bahadur there was no demand of any dowry, whatever gifts were provided by him as per own free will and otherwise also marriage aforesaid was love marriage. Thus, the simple assertion made by the witness aforesaid about the torture meted out to the deceased without referring particular period, does bring the case within the ambit of the offences charged. Further, there is lack of cogent evidence towards the demand of dowry and alleged torture. The evidence led by the prosecution bristle with discrepancies and contradictions and there is no supporting material to that effect. There is also even no iota of evidence with respect to any provocation, incitement or any abetment to the deceased to commit suicide. Further, there is evidence on record that the complainant party had desecrated the dead body and alleged to have falsely made the allegations with respect to the complicity of the police as well as the doctor to issue the incorrect report of postmortem which resulted into FIR against them. Further, there is evidence on record that the complainant party had desecrated the dead body and alleged to have falsely made the allegations with respect to the complicity of the police as well as the doctor to issue the incorrect report of postmortem which resulted into FIR against them. Even during the trial PW1 as well as his son, both have stated that the accused persons had killed the deceased so as to make it a case of murder, but being actuated with overzealousness instead of proving the case by bringing more material on record has caused a serious dent in the prosecution case showing that the complainant party was out and out to cause damage to the accused persons by leveling allegation by going to any extent. 12. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred above, we do not find that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court were either perverse or were not borne out from the record. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State is devoid of any merit, hence demised. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. Send down the record.