Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 704 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar

2013-07-31

DEV DARSHAN SUD, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, Judge The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents who were charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The facts as alleged by the prosecution are that accused Pawan Kumar, husband of deceased, and Pyare Lal both, sons of Kanshi Ram (A-3) were married with deceased Meena and Anjana Devi respectively about 12 years prior to the incident. Deceased Meena Devi and Anjana Devi (PW-16) are sisters of Kali Dass (PW-1). Meena Devi had four children, out of whom, only one child Deepak (DW-1) is surviving. The other three children had died. The case of the prosecution is that after about one year of their marriage, Pawan Kumar and Pyare Lal accused started harassing and torturing deceased Meena and Anjana (PW-16). They used to beat them up after drinking. The other accused Kanshi Ram, Shankari Devi, Giano Devi and Premi Devi used to instigate both of them to thrash both Meena and Anjana. On 16.3.2004, Anjana was beaten up by the accused persons and Kirpu Ram (PW-2) accompanied Anjana. Kirpu Ram (PW-2) told Kali Dass (PW-1) that Anjana had been beaten up by the accused and her life was in danger. On 19.3.2004 at around 11.00 p.m., Sohan Lal informed Kali Dass (PW-1) that Meena had died. Kali Dass did not believe this fact because earlier also, on one occasion, he had been informed about her death by accused Pawan Kumar which was conveyed to him from Ludhiana and to verify they visited Ludhiana and found this report to be false and Meena was found alive. On 20.3.2004, PW-1 asked someone on telephone about deceased Meena and he was told that Meena had in fact died on the previous day. Thereafter, he alongwith villagers went to village Jejwin. Information with respect to this fact was also given to the Police. On reaching the house of accused Pawan Kumar, Kali Dass saw that dead body of Meena was lying in the Verandah and froth was coming out from her mouth. Police party headed by S.I. Rai Singh (PW-17) reached the spot whereafter Kali Dass (PW-1) lodged report that the accused used to beat and harass her and therefore she was left with no other option but to commit suicide by consuming some poison. Police party headed by S.I. Rai Singh (PW-17) reached the spot whereafter Kali Dass (PW-1) lodged report that the accused used to beat and harass her and therefore she was left with no other option but to commit suicide by consuming some poison. Rai Singh (PW-17) recorded the statement of PW-1 (Kali Dass) (Ex.PW1/A) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sent it to the Police Station for registration of the case. F.I.R. (Ex.PW10/A) was registered and investigation was conducted by the police. 3. The prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses and the defence was relied upon the evidence of five witnesses. After assessment of the evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence of PW-1 (Kali Dass), brother of the deceased and PW-2 (Kirpu Ram) who have given a vivid description of the maltreatment meted out to the deceased and PW-1 (Anjana Devi) who was married to the other accused, PW-3 (Gurdevi) and the Pradhan who have proved on record Ex.P-1, P-2 and P-3, which are complaints made by Anjana and Meena, which clearly point out the complicity of the accused. The evidence of PW-6 (Chander Swaroop), Up-Pradhan has been completely ignored. Learned counsel submits that if this evidence is insufficient to bring home the charge under Section 306 of the I.P.C., it is sufficient either in isolation or in conjunction to convict the accused under Section 498-A of I.P.C. 5. We advert to the evidence of PW-1 (Kali Dass). He is brother of the deceased who only makes a general statement and he has not come out with specific evidence of cruelty. We also note that in his cross-examination, this witness has clearly admitted that the demand for dowry was stated by him for the first time in Court and he was not aware about any specific demand. PW-2 (Kirpu Ram) states that he had settled the marriage of deceased Meena and Anjana about 13-14 years back. On 16.3.2004, Anjana came to his house and told him that she had been beaten up by the accused. At that time, Anjana was unable to walk. PW-2 (Kirpu Ram) states that he had settled the marriage of deceased Meena and Anjana about 13-14 years back. On 16.3.2004, Anjana came to his house and told him that she had been beaten up by the accused. At that time, Anjana was unable to walk. People advised him to take Anjana to the Police Station, whereas he accompanied her to the house of her parents at about 5:00 p.m. He also took alongwith him Anjana’s son as he was to appear in an examination. On 16.3.2004, Meena came to his house in his absence and asked about Anjana, on which his son and daughter told Meena that he (PW-2) had gone with Anjana to Berthin. He further state that thereafter, Meena said that Anjana had left for her parents’ house as she was apprehending danger to her life. What we notice at this stage is that this witness states that Anjana had been beaten up severely and was unable to walk and in this eventuality she should have been taken to the hospital or for medical aid but this course was not followed. No action was reported or initiated against the accused rather Anjana was taken to her parents’ house, who also did not follow any course or action for her protection. We also find that there is no evidence that the parents had approached the police. We cannot comprehend why any action was not taken by the parents of the deceased despite notice that Anjana had been severely beaten up. We find that the statement attributed to Meena is hearsay as the son or the daughter of this witness who imparted information to him was not produced in Court. When we advert to cross-examination of this witness, we do not find any reason that when there were 60-70 houses in the village why Meena and Anjana had not informed/complained to other persons about the beatings/maltreatment. 6. Adverting to the evidence of PW-3 (Gurdevi), Pradhan, we find that it is not worthy of credence for the reason that she did not say anything in evidence but only exhibited Ex.P-1 and E.P-2 by stating that these documents bear her signatures. Now, we advert to these two documents. Ex.P-1 is a Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat stating that there is no complaint/“Dawa” (case) registered by both, i.e. deceased as also PW-16 (Anjana). Now, we advert to these two documents. Ex.P-1 is a Certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat stating that there is no complaint/“Dawa” (case) registered by both, i.e. deceased as also PW-16 (Anjana). Ex.P-2 is a paper signed by seven persons namely, Nikka Ram, Rattan Lal, Shyam Lal, Smt. Kanta Devi, Premi Devi, Sheela Devi and Sita Ram. This document shows that somewhere in 2003, Meena came to them and informed them that she had been beaten up by accused when they were under the influence of liquor. On this, they told her to go home and sort out the matter with the family members. What surprises us is that none of the signatories of the documents have been produced in Court. We now advert to the evidence of PW-6 (Chander Swaroop). He says that about 2 years ago (from the date when his statement was recorded in Court on 19.7.2005), Kali Dass (PW-1) told him that his two sisters were beaten up and harassed by their in-laws. He went with Kali Dass (PW-1) to Jejwin where the matter was compromised and the accused had apologized. The compromise was oral and not reduced into writing. Thereafter, on 17.3.2004, Anjana came to her parents’ house and stated that she was beaten up and harassed by her in-laws. On 20.3.2004, Kali Dass told him that Meena had died. This statement is made in general terms. Now, adverting to the statement of PW-16 (Anjana) which states that she and her sister were being beaten up by the accused we find that this statement is general in nature and does not state any specific incident. When she was cross-examined, she states that the first report was made by both sisters to the Pradhan after one year of their marriage and the matter was orally compromised. Last report according to her was made to the Pachayat in writing about three years ago (which would be in the year 2002). She admits that the deceased used to live in Ludhiana but could not state about any demand for dowry. We find that there is no written report on the record. 7. We now advert to the written evidence. Ex.P-3, which is an application purportedly to have been made by deceased Meena Kumari to Pradhan, Gram Phas relied by the prosecution. Ex.P-4 is the report purportedly sent by Anjana Devi to the Deputy Commissioner. We find that there is no written report on the record. 7. We now advert to the written evidence. Ex.P-3, which is an application purportedly to have been made by deceased Meena Kumari to Pradhan, Gram Phas relied by the prosecution. Ex.P-4 is the report purportedly sent by Anjana Devi to the Deputy Commissioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that this writing has actually been received in the Office or any action taken thereon. Adverting to Ex.P-5, which is a writing by Shri. M.R. Mahajan, President of Vikas Khand Janhuntta, Gram Panchayat Jajhwin to the Deputy Commissioner, stating that Meena Devi has been harassed by her in-laws, there is no evidence whether this report has been received in the Office of Deputy Commissioner or not. This person also issued Certificates Ex.P-7, P-8 and P-9 being some kind of statements recorded by him. We find that this person has been kept back from the witness-box. He was a very important witness who has not been examined by the prosecution. After re-appreciating and reevaluating the evidence on record, we don’t find any evidence on record as to what exact demand of dowry has been made by the accused and what is the cruel treatment which left her with no option but to end her life. We also find that the evidence is insufficient which would sustain conviction under Section 306 of I.P.C. In these circumstances, we find that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. 8. Before parting with the judgment, we place on record our displeasure at the manner in which the investigation has been carried out as the same has been conduct in a very cavalier manner. We leave it open to the Home Department to look into the matter.