Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1348 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjay Kumar

2014-09-25

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal, rendered on 31.12.2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Session Case No.49-G/VII/06, whereby the respondents have been acquitted for theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case, are, that, on 8th December, 2004, marriage of Rachna with accused Sanjay was solemnized as per Hindu rites. Other accused are stated to be her matrimonial relations. It has been alleged that the accused ill-treated Rachna by taunting her for her shortcomings in performing the household chores and hers not bringing sufficient dowry. She was not even permitted to move anywhere. She had been complaining all this, yet, every time she was pacified on the assurance of accused that in future the things would improve, but of no result. Thereafter on the intervening night of 23rd of October, 2005, she was being fed up with the ill-behavior of her in-laws, had committed suicide by jumping in the well. On receipt of intimation the parents of Rachna rushed to the Jawalamukhi Hospital, whereby they found her daughter dead. Statement of the father of the deceased was recorded. On the basis of which FIR was registered and investigation into the offence was commenced. During investigation, it was found that accused being her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law had been ill-treating her and on such ill-treatment and maltreatment having been meted out by the accused to the deceased, she committed suicide by jumping in the well. 3. On conclusion of the investigation, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the Court. 4. The accused were charged, for, theirs having committed offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 IPC, by the learned trial Court, to, which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded, in, which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They chose to lead evidence in defence and examined one Shri Kulbhushn as DW-1. 6. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded, in, which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They chose to lead evidence in defence and examined one Shri Kulbhushn as DW-1. 6. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. 7. The State of H.P., is, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, in, favour of the accused/respondents. The Learned Assistant Advocate General has concertedly, and, vigorously contended, that, the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, are, not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal, be, reversed by this Court, in, exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, be replaced by findings of conviction, and, concomitantly an appropriate sentence, be also imposed upon the accused/respondents. 8. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below, are, based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record, and, do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication. 9. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 10. The first witness, who stepped into the witness box, in, proof of the prosecution case, is, PW-1, Dr. Puran Chand, who has proved the post mortem report comprised in Ex. PW-1/D. In his opinion the deceased had died owing to Antemortem drowning. 11. PW-2 Kashmir Singh, the father of the deceased deposes that the marriage of his deceased daughter with the accused Sanjay was solemnized on 8.12.2004. He further deposes that when she visited her maternal home after two months, she complained about the ill treatments being meted out to her by the accused. He Continues to deposes that his deceased daughter disclosed to him that the accused taunted her on account of shortcomings in performing the household work, besides he deposes that they also taunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry. He Continues to deposes that his deceased daughter disclosed to him that the accused taunted her on account of shortcomings in performing the household work, besides he deposes that they also taunted her for not bringing sufficient dowry. He continues to depose that the deceased was not even permitted to visit any relation or to go out of the house. He deposes that when she visited her maternal home and stayed there for one month, accused Sanjay also accompanied her for 15-16 days. At that time, on advice having been meted to accused Sanjay and on her assuring that things were improved, they both left for matrimonial home. However he deposes that he was telephonically informed by his deceased daughter that there is no improvement in the behaviors of the accused and all of them are behaving in the same manner. He deposes that On 19.10.2005 he visited her daughter and on that date only sister-in-law as well as grand mother of the husband of the deceased were present in the house. When accused Sanjay and his mother had returned home after about one hour, they did not have any conversation with him. He deposes that accused Sanjay assured him that the things would not be repeated whereas other refused to talk to him. On 23.10.2005 at about 12-12.30 a.m., accused Rachna has been deposed by this witness to have informed him telephonically that Rachna has fell down from the stairs and her condition is serious. Thereafter he made telephonic call by 12.30 a.m. and accused Ramesh told him that his daughter had fallen in the well and is in Civil Hospital Jawalmukhi. He further deposes that then they proceeded to the Hospital where they found their daughter lying dead on a cemented bench. His statement comprised in Ex. PW-2/A was recorded by the police. He deposes that he had also affixed his signatures on the inquest papers. In his cross-examination he deposes it to be correct that this marriage was arranged by Joginder son of his sister-in-law. It is also admitted to be correct by this witness that in those days Joginder was posted in Police Station, Jawalamukhi. It is also stated to be correct that during the stay at my house accused Sanjay and his daughter visited the house of Jginder to participate in some birthday function. It is also admitted to be correct by this witness that in those days Joginder was posted in Police Station, Jawalamukhi. It is also stated to be correct that during the stay at my house accused Sanjay and his daughter visited the house of Jginder to participate in some birthday function. It is also admitted to be correct that when he visited his daughter on the eve of karwa chauth, he had taken some items to his daughter. It is also admitted to be correct that he had his lunch at the house of the accused. He further stated it to be incorrect that he was told by the accused that deceased visited Mandir by 8.00 p.m. and on returning home got photo snapped alongwith her husband at Jawalaji Bazar. It is correct that when he arrived at the Hospital, police was already there. It is admitted to be incorrect that his statement was recorded by the police after 9.00 a.m. at the instance of Joginder. He further deposes that he was not aware that the people from the house of accused used to go by the well to answer the call of nature. It is stated to be wrong that this occurrence took place by 8.45- 9.00 p.m and within half an hour, he received the information telephonically. It is stated to be correct that after death of his daughter talks regarding return of dowry articles also took place. It is stated to be wrong to suggest that none of the accused has ill-treated his daughter. 12. PW-3 Pushpa Devi deposes that she had arranged the marriage of Rachna with accused Sanjay. She continues to depose that after marriage, all the accused started ill-treating the deceased Rachna on petty matters. She further deposes that when they used to give some money, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of deceased used to take the same away. She further deposes that the accused used to taunt the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. She further deposes that she had advised the deceased to settle in the house of in-laws and in case the ill-treatment is not stopped, the matter will be reported to the police. In her cross-examination she deposes that her statement was recorded after death of Rachna. She further deposes that she had advised the deceased to settle in the house of in-laws and in case the ill-treatment is not stopped, the matter will be reported to the police. In her cross-examination she deposes that her statement was recorded after death of Rachna. She further deposes that she had stated before the police that the accused used to ask the deceased to come with dowry as and when she visits her parents. She further deposes that the money as was given by us to the deceased were used to be taken by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law (confronted with Ex. DA, wherein it is not recorded). She deposes it to be incorrect that the accused never ill-treated the deceased. 13. PW-4 Joginder Singh deposes that he was working as Home Guard in Police Station, Jawalamukhi. Rachna (deceased) has been deposed to be his cousin. He deposes that the deceased used to tell that accused persons, present in the Court, used to ill-treat her on petty matters. He continues to depose that the deceased apprised him that accused claims that less dowry has been provided. During Kala Mahina, accused Sanjay has been deposed to have stayed in the parental house of Rachna for 15 days. Accused Sanjay has been deposed to have advised to behave properly and no report was made to any authority with a hope that the matter will be settled. He further deposes that there was no improvement in the behavior of the accused. He deposes that Rachna is not even permitted to talk to any of the relations and accused Sanjay has been deposed to have accompanied her in her all visits. He deposes that deceased was killed by the accused by throwing her in the well. In his cross-examination he stated it to be correct that before and after marriage, he used to visit the house of the accused. It is stated to be incorrect to suggest that after death of Rachna, he was present in the Hospital, when parents of the deceased came there. It is also stated to be incorrect that Rachna never complained to him about the ill treatments being meted out by the accused to her. It is stated to be wrong that the report was made to the police at his instance, on account of which he was making false statement. 14. It is also stated to be incorrect that Rachna never complained to him about the ill treatments being meted out by the accused to her. It is stated to be wrong that the report was made to the police at his instance, on account of which he was making false statement. 14. PW-5 Praveen deposes that he was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Dharamshala Mahtan, in the year 2005. Kashmir Singh has been deposed to have asked him to accompany him to the house of his deceased daughter, as she was being ill-treated. He further deposes that on the eve of Chauwarakh of mother of Joginder, Rachna and Sanjay had also come. The deceased has been deposed have told them that she would not return to her matrimonial home as she was being ill-treated there. In his cross-examination he stated it to be incorrect that his statement was recorded after 11 days of the occurrence. He further deposes that he told to the police that he was told by the deceased that her in laws taunt her for brining less dowry. 15. PW-6 Joginder Singh deposes that deceased used to tell about the ill treatments being meted out by the accused to her. He further deposes that he had advised Rachna that things would improve. Rachna has been deposed by this witness to have taunted by the accused for bringing less dowry. He further deposes that on invitation, accused Sanjay and deceased Rachna had come to attend the chuwarkh of his mother. He further deposes that deceased Rachna was refusing to go back to her matrimonial homes as the accused ill-treat her. In his cross-examination he deposes it to be correct that on the eve of Karwachauth his brother had visited the house of Rachna for giving gifts etc. It is stated to be incorrect that they were told that Rachna had fell in the well and was shifted to the Hospital. He deposes that on death of Rachna, he does not visit her matrimonial house, yet he attended the funeral. He feigns ignorance qua the fact of his having told the police of the deceased having told to him about the ill-treatments being meted out to her by the accused on the ground of bringing less dowry. 16. PW-7 Dr. Vivek deposes that he has examined the deceased and on her examination, pulse and B.P was not perceptible. He feigns ignorance qua the fact of his having told the police of the deceased having told to him about the ill-treatments being meted out to her by the accused on the ground of bringing less dowry. 16. PW-7 Dr. Vivek deposes that he has examined the deceased and on her examination, pulse and B.P was not perceptible. There was no respiration and puples dilated. He deposes that he started cardio-pulmonary prima court along with oxygen inhalation; forty blood was oozing out from her nose. Despite all above measures, patient could not revive and was declared dead. He further deposes that there is no mark of injury on the body of the deceased. The body has been deposed to have handed over to the police for post mortem examination. MLC Ex. PW-7/A has been deposed to have issued by him which bears his signatures. He deposes that death could be caused by drowning in the 17. PW-8 HC Thakru Ram deposes that SHO Ranjeet Singh had deposited viserca parcel with him alongwith another parcel. Both the parcels were sealed with seal SDH of eight seals which were deposited alongwith docket and impression of the seal. He further deposes that entry was made in Register No. 19. He had brought the Malkhana register, viscera alongwith seal impression, docket sent to FSL Junga vide RC No. 180/21 on 26.10.2005 through C Pradeep Kumar, who had deposited the receipt qua the same with him on his return. 18. PW-9 Pradeep kumar deposes that one parcel sealed with seal SDH vide RC No. 180/21 had been deposited by him at FSL, Junga alongwith docket and handed over its receipt to MHC. 19. PW-10 ASI Sansar Chand deposes that on 23.10.2005 Constable Baldev Singh had brought Rukka Ex. PW-2/A, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW-10/A was registered. On the reverse of Rukka he made endorsement Ex. PW-10/B. Rapat No. 10 dated 22.10.2005 has been deposed to be the correct copy of the original. 20. PW-11 SI Ranjit Singh deposes that a telephonic information was sent by the SHO to the police Station, which was reduced into writing, copy of which has been deposed to have comprised in Ex. PW-10/C. He further deposes that he alongwith police officials proceeded to CH, Jawalmukhi and moved application Ex. PW-7/B to SMO and procured MLC Ex. PW-7/A on 23.10.2005. PW-10/C. He further deposes that he alongwith police officials proceeded to CH, Jawalmukhi and moved application Ex. PW-7/B to SMO and procured MLC Ex. PW-7/A on 23.10.2005. He continues to depose that Kashmir Singh made statement Ex. PW-2/A at the CHC J/Mukhi, which was sent through C Baldev to the P.S for registration of the FIR. FIR comprised in Ex. PW-10/A was registered. Endorsement on the reverse of Rukka Ex. PW-10/B has been deposed to have made and thereafter he received the case file. Photographs of the dead body were got clicked. Inquest papers Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C were prepared in presence of witnesses. On an application comprised in Ex. PW-1/A, CMO, Dehra had conducted the postmortem of the deceased, report is comprised in Ex. PW-1/D. Site plan comprised in Ex. PW-11/A has been deposed to have prepared by him. Statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. He further deposes that the statement of PW Pushpa Devi Ex. DA was recorded as her version. He further deposes that on receipt of PMR viscera was also collected from the CMO alongwith clothes of the deceased. The viscera was sent to FSL which earlier had been deposited with MHC. Report Ex. PW-11/B was received from the FSL. The accused were arrested. He continues to depose that it the investigation it was found that the deceased was ill-treated by her in laws. He further deposes that on the closure of the investigation, he prepared the challan and presented before the Court. In his cross-examination he deposes that Ex. DA and Ex. DB were recorded correctly. 21. The deceased Rachna was married to accused Sanjay on 8.12.2004. She committed suicide by jumping in a well on 23.10.2005. The post mortem report comprised in PW-1/D proved by PW-1 ascribes the demise of deceased Rachna to Ante Mortem drowning. On the strength of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses unraveling the fact of the deceased Rachna being ill-treated or maltreated by the accused comprised in theirs taunting the deceased for her purported shortcomings in performing household chores as also hers bringing insufficient dowry hence constituting instigation as well actuation to the deceased to commit suicide as such it is contended that the accused are liable to be convicted and sentenced for the charge framed against them. 22. 22. The forte of the prosecution case is bed rocked upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The forte would gain vigour only in the event of it having been convincingly established by the prosecution that any or each of the particularized specific acts of cruelty constituting instigation or actuation to the deceased to commit suicide were proximate to the occurrence as also it being satisfactorily proved that each of the purported acts of cruelty constituting actuation to the deceased to commit suicide were of such magnitude, potency and vigour that the deceased had no option but to take her life. In testing whether the prosecution has been able to prove the factum of each of the accused having with specificity in time indulged in the acts of cruelty, sequelling instigation or actuation to the deceased to take her life, an advertence initially is to be made to the testimony of the father of the deceased who appeared in the witness box as PW-2. A reading on his testimony unbares the factum of his having deposed qua generalized complaints having been made to him by his deceased daughter about the ill-treatment having been meted to her by the accused, constituted in their acts of theirs taunting her for her purported shortcomings in performing household chores as also of hers not bringing sufficient dowry. However the said acts attributed to each of the accused, lack disclosure qua specificity in time as also lack pronouncement with exactitude qua their potency and vigour. Moreover, the factum of his having deposed in his cross-examination that for a period of one month falling in the =Kala Mahina', both his deceased daughter and her husband had stayed in their house as also his having visited the house of his deceased daughter on =Karwa chauth' in the year in which the fateful incident took place, rather pronounces upon the fact that the relations inter-se the accused and his deceased daughter had not reached a boiling point nor were soured. Consequently, hence, it appears that he is concocting a story qua ill-treatment or maltreatment having been meted out to his deceased daughter by the accused. Consequently, hence, it appears that he is concocting a story qua ill-treatment or maltreatment having been meted out to his deceased daughter by the accused. Preponderantly his having omitted to convey with exactitude or precision in his examination in chief as discussed hereinabove, the date, month and year when the purported acts of ill-treatment or maltreatment were meted to his deceased daughter by the accused as also his having omitted to convey the magnitude of the ill-treatment and it acquiring such propensity which drove the deceased to commit suicide, constrains this Court to conclude that hence occurrences, if any, which took place in the matrimonial home of the deceased, were mere trifles which hence did not constitute any instigation or actuation for the deceased to take her life. Also, the factum of non-revelation in the testimony of PW-1 that in immediate proximity to the fateful incident any purported ill-treatment as meted to the deceased by the accused and was so grave that it constituted actuation to the deceased to take her life, constrains this Court to conclude that hence, the prosecution has been unable to portray that at a time proximate to the fateful incident the accused had indulged in such acts of ill-treatment or maltreatment to the deceased and in such propensity besides of such magnitude that the deceased was driven to take her life. Rather the factum of the admission of father of the deceased comprised in his cross-examination of his deceased daughter alongwith her husband having stayed at their house in =Kala Mahina' as also his having visited her daughter on the occasion of =karwa chauth' and his having had lunch at the house of the accused, to the contrary, conveys that the relations interse the accused and deceased never touched the boiling point, also besides it can also be concluded that the deposition of PW-2 in his examination in chief of the accused ill-treating and maltreating the deceased is smothered by admissions aforesaid made by the witness in his cross-examination. This Court has also scanned the testimonies of PWs 3 and 4, both of whom have taken to corroborate the testimony of PW-2. However theirs testimonies do not acquire any probative value in the face of theirs also like PW-2 having deposed in generalized and nebulous manner qua the facts constituting the purported ill-treatment and maltreatment meted out by the accused to the deceased. However theirs testimonies do not acquire any probative value in the face of theirs also like PW-2 having deposed in generalized and nebulous manner qua the facts constituting the purported ill-treatment and maltreatment meted out by the accused to the deceased. Therefore given the generalized allegations against the accused especially when they lack in specifity qua time as also lack in precision qua attribution of specific acts to each of the accused as also omitted to convey that such acts were committed at a time proximate to the fateful incident, obviously then such generalized allegations made by PW-4 and 5 against the accused on the strength of revelations made to them by the deceased cannot, hence acquire the force of potent instigatory factors which led the deceased to commit suicide. Even though, PW-5 has deposed the fact of the deceased on 3.9.2005 on the eve of =Chawrakh' of the mother of Joginder having apprised him that she would not return to her matrimonial home as she is being ill-treated there, cannot constitute reliable evidence against the accused as the said fact has been omitted to be deposed by PW-2, hence, it appears that it being in contradiction to the testimony of PW-2, its sanctity stands eroded. 23. A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, it having mis-appreciated the evidence on record or omitted to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit inference. 24. In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.