Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 7 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kalyan Chand

2013-01-01

DEEPAK GUPTA, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2004 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No.82-P/VII/03 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The undisputed facts are that the deceased Monika Sharma was married to accused Ravi Kumar in the year 1999. Accused Kalyan Chand is the father and accused Shakuntal Devi is the mother of accused Ravi Kumar. It is not disputed that Monika Sharma committed suicide on 22.4.2000 by consuming some poisonous substance containing aluminum phosphide. Before her death, it was alleged that Monika Sharma made a statement in the nature of a dying declaration which was recorded by PW-6 Paras Ram. Smt. Rekha Devi mother of the deceased also complained that her daughter was treated well for about three months after the marriage but thereafter the three accused had been ill-treating her daughter and she was forced to come to her matrimonial home. 3. On 19.4.2000 nephew of accused Kalyan Chand was married in village Mahri in which parents of the Monika reside, Ravi Kumar husband of Monika also came to the same village. On 21.4.2000 both accused Ravi and Kalyan Chand father came to the house of PW-1 and asked Monika to accompany them but Monika told that she will accompany them if they give an undertaking in writing that she would not be harassed. The accused refused to give such an undertaking in writing and stated that they would return to their home on 22.4.2000 and if she wants to come, she could meet them at the bus stand at Bhawarna. 4. On 22.4.2000 Monika Sharma went to the bus stand at about 8.45 a.m. PW-1 also went to the bus stand at about 10 a.m. to find out whether her daughter Monika had left or not. At the bus stand, she met her daughter Monika, her son-in-law Ravi and Kalyan Chand father of Ravi. Monika was talking to Ravi and Kalyan Chand for a long time. She then came back to her mother and told that she will go back to her maternal home. Monika also told her mother Rekha Devi that accused Ravi had taken her wrist watch and ring. When they returned home after some time Monika started vomiting. Monika was talking to Ravi and Kalyan Chand for a long time. She then came back to her mother and told that she will go back to her maternal home. Monika also told her mother Rekha Devi that accused Ravi had taken her wrist watch and ring. When they returned home after some time Monika started vomiting. Her condition deteriorated and in the meantime Paras Ram came to their house. The crux of the statement is that when Monika met her husband Ravi and her father-in-law Kalyan Chand, she wanted to go with her husband but her father-in-law stated that it would be better that she dies. She then told her husband that if he wants, he could kill her but she wanted to go with him. Kalyan Chand took out some medicine from his pocket and handed it over to his son Ravi, who in turn handed over the same to Monika Sharma. After returning home, she consumed the medicine and then started vomiting. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PW-8/B was lodged against the accused and the matter was investigated. After completion of investigation the accused were charged under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. After trial, they have been acquitted, hence this appeal by the State. 5. Monika died an unnatural death i.e. she committed suicide within 7 months of her marriage. However, still burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused treated her with cruelty of such nature that she was forced to commit suicide. The sheet anchor of the prosecution case is the dying declaration of Monika. The mother appearing as PW-1 has supported the version and has stated that this statement was recorded by Paras Ram. However, PW-6 Paras Ram gives totally a different version. According to him, Monika was not in a fit state to make any statement. He states that he was called by PW-2, sister of Monika Sharma and the mother asked him to write the statement of Monika. His version is that Monika did not say anything but it is the mother who made statement and he recorded the same. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned prosecutor. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not signed the statement. He also states that Monika had signed the statement when she was virtually unconscious. His version is that Monika did not say anything but it is the mother who made statement and he recorded the same. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned prosecutor. In cross-examination, he stated that he had not signed the statement. He also states that Monika had signed the statement when she was virtually unconscious. We have perused the signatures on the statement and they do not appear to be of a person who is fully in control of her senses. It is just a scrawl and not a proper signature. The only other evidence in the present case is the statements of PW-1 and PW-2. PW-1 is the mother. Even in her examination-in-chief she first states that the accused might have been making demand of dowry, though later she stated that her daughter had told that the accused were demanding dowry. Thus no demand of dowry was made by the accused from PW-1. 6. The other allegation of the cruelty is that her daughter was being beaten by the accused. Even with regard to beatings, there is no evidence and the mother was confronted with the statement recorded by the police Ex.PW-1/A in which there is no mention of any beatings given to the deceased Monika by the accused. Her version in Court is different to the one made in the complaint. In the original complaint she had stated that her daughter earlier went to Bhawarna bus stand and she went later, but in the Court she stated that both of them went together to Bhawarna bus stand. Her examination-in-chief also makes it clear that on the previous day when the marriage of nephew of Kalyan Chand was to take place, Kalyan Chand and Ravi came to her house and asked Monika to accompany them to village Mahri to attend the marriage but Monika refused to attend the marriage and insisted to go to her matrimonial home. It was then that the accused asked her to join them at Bhawarna bus stand. In cross-examination, she has clearly admitted that the marriage of her daughter with Ravi was simple one and at the time of marriage both the accused Ravi and Kalyan Chand had refused to accept any dowry. It was then that the accused asked her to join them at Bhawarna bus stand. In cross-examination, she has clearly admitted that the marriage of her daughter with Ravi was simple one and at the time of marriage both the accused Ravi and Kalyan Chand had refused to accept any dowry. In cross-examination, this witness further states that on 21.4.2000 both the accused Ravi and his father Kalyan Chand wanted to take Monika to attend the marriage at Mahri, but Monika refused to go to village Mahri and insisted to go to Hoshiarpur. She in cross-examination also admitted that Ravi accused had come to the house on one or two occasions in between. She also admitted that she and her husband had gone to the house of the accused at Hoshiarpur on the occasion of Lohri festi val in the year 2001 and then brought their daughter back to the village. 7. The father has not been examined and there is no clear cut evidence as to what compelled Monika to come back to the village. It is not unnatural for a married daughter to come back to the matrimonial home at the time of such festival. It is, however, unusual for a married daughter to remain in her matrimonial home for 3-4 months at a stretch as in the present case. Thus, it appears some differences between the married couple had cropped up. Even if, such differences were there, whether the behaviour of the accused amounts to cruelty is the only question which is to be decided on the basis of evidence. The statement of PW-1 other then making very general allegation does not give any specific instance of cruelty. 8. As noticed above, the father has not been examined. The only witness examined in this regard is PW-2 Kiran Sharma, sister of Monika. She has also made a similar statement that Monika was kept properly for three months after the marriage and thereafter the accused started harassing her and taunting her for bringing less dowry and were demanding more dowry. This version of the statement is totally contradictory to the statement of the mother that the accused person did not accept dowry at the time of marriage. This witness also states that she met the accused person on 21.4.2000 in the house of her parents. This version of the statement is totally contradictory to the statement of the mother that the accused person did not accept dowry at the time of marriage. This witness also states that she met the accused person on 21.4.2000 in the house of her parents. Whereas the mother has stated that accused Ravi and Kalyan Chand wanted to take Monika to attend the marriage at village Mahri, according to this witness the marriage had already taken place and the accused did not make any offer to take Monika to attend the marriage. In fact her version is that Monika wanted to go with the accused but they refused to take her. This is totally different from the version of the mother. This witness was also confronted with the statement recorded by the police wherein it is not recorded that accused persons had demanded dowry. 9. Neither the mother nor the sister admittedly heard the conversation which took place between Monika and her husband. What transpired at the bus stand between husband and wife (Monika) and her father-in-law has not been proved on record. No presumption can be raised on either side. The only fact which can be considered to be proved is that Monika did not go with her husband and father-in-law and returned home. On this basis alone, it cannot be said that the accused treated Monika with cruelty. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged.