Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 644 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Anil Kumar

2014-05-26

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.1.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 29-D/2002, whereby accused, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, were acquitted. Accused/Respondent No.1 has died during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal qua him stands abated. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW2 Ram Prashad, made statement Ext.PW2/A to the effect that the deceased Sanju Devi was his sister. Her marriage was solemnized with accused Anil Kumar in the month of February 2001 as per Hindu rites. Dowry articles were given as per their financial status. The deceased Sanju Devi visited her parental house after four months of marriage and disclosed that the accused were not treating her properly. She also disclosed that her husband used to beat her. The accused were harassing her for bringing insufficient dowry. On 11.4.2002, PW2 Ram Prashad went to the house of the accused to invite Sanju Devi to his house, but they flatly refused to send her with him. Sanju Devi committed suicide by hanging during intervening night of 11/12.4.2002 in her matrimonial house. FIR Ext. PW10/A was recorded on the basis of statement of PW2 Ram Prashad, Ext.PW2/A. The matter was investigated. Photographs of the deceased, Ext. PW11/A-1 to Ext.PW11/A-4 were taken. Site plan, Ext.PW12/A was prepared. Rope, Ext.P1, was produced by the accused Anil Kumar and the same was taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW5/A. Inquest papers, Ext.PW12/B were prepared. The postmortem on the body of deceased Sanju Devi was conducted vide post mortem report, Ext.PW1/B. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 23.1.2007. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 23.1.2007. 6. P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution and claimed innocence. Learned trial court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 23.1.2007. Hence, the appeal. 4. Mr. Parmod Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Advocate, has supported the impugned judgment dated 23.1.2007. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment and record carefully. 7. PW1, Dr. Samanju Dhiman, deposed that on 13.4.2002, on application, Ext.PW1/A, she and Dr. D.P. Swami were deputed to conduct post mortem on the body of deceased Sanju Devi. The post mortem report is Ext. PW1/A. The cause of death was asphyxia due to ante mortem partial hanging. Probable time elapsed between injury and death was 1 to 5 minutes and between death and post mortem was 8 to 15 hours. 8. PW2, Ram Prashad, brother of the deceased, deposed that he was studying in 10+2 class at Government Senior Secondary School, Chadi. His father was working in the Army. Sanju Devi was married to accused Anil Kumar as per Hindu rites in the month of February 2001. His parents had given dowry as per their capacity. She was treated properly for about four months after marriage. Thereafter, the accused started ill-treating her for bringing insufficient dowry. They used to taunt her. On 11.4.2002, he went to the house of the accused to invite his sister to his house, but accused Champa Devi refused to send her with him. During the night of 12.4.2002, his sister committed suicide. In cross-examination, he admitted that marriage was solemnized in a simple manner. After marriage, his sister and her husband came to his house about fifteen times. They used to return to their house after staying 3-4 days on every visit. He admitted that during April, 2002, there was marriage of Rali (local custom) in the matrimonial house of his sister. He also admitted that he went to invite his sister on 11.4.2002 on the occasion of Baisakhi. He admitted that they never reported the matter about maltreatment before the Panchayat and the Police. He admitted that his sister was brought up with love and affection and she was sensitive. He also admitted that he went to invite his sister on 11.4.2002 on the occasion of Baisakhi. He admitted that they never reported the matter about maltreatment before the Panchayat and the Police. He admitted that his sister was brought up with love and affection and she was sensitive. He also admitted that when he went to invite his sister at her matrimonial house, her mother-in-law told him that she would not send her because of marriage of Rali in their house. 9. PW3, Maya Devi, mother of the deceased, deposed that after 3-4 months of marriage, accused started maltreating her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. According to her, she invited her daughter many times, but she was not allowed by the accused. On 13.4.2002, at about 1.00 A.M., Paras Ram came to their house and informed that Sanju Devi had committed suicide in her matrimonial house. In cross-examination, she admitted that before marriage, at the time of marriage and after marriage, accused never demanded dowry from her. She admitted that her daughter and son-in-law used to stay for 3-4 days in her house. She admitted that she had sent her son to invite Sanju Devi in connection with Baisakhi fair. She also admitted that when her son returned home, he told her that the mother-in-law of deceased showed her inability to send her to their house due to marriage of Rali in her matrimonial house. 10. PW4, Des Raj, deposed that Sanju Devi was his niece (sister’s daughter). Her marriage was solemnized with Anil Kumar as per Hindu rites. The parents of Sanju Devi had also given dowry to the accused as per their financial capacity. His sister Maya Devi did not complain anything against the accused. However, second daughter of his sister, Minu, told him that when she had gone to the house of her elder sister at Goju, then she told her that her in-laws were maltreating her for bringing insufficient dowry. In cross-examination, he admitted that accused did not make any demand before marriage, at the time of marriage and after marriage. 11. PW6, Meena Devi, deposed that marriage of Sanju Devi was solemnized with accused Anil Kumar in the month of February 2001. Her father had given dowry to Anil Kumar as per his capacity. After one month of marriage, she came to her parental house. She did not say anything. 11. PW6, Meena Devi, deposed that marriage of Sanju Devi was solemnized with accused Anil Kumar in the month of February 2001. Her father had given dowry to Anil Kumar as per his capacity. After one month of marriage, she came to her parental house. She did not say anything. However, after 5-6 months, when she again came to her parental house, then she narrated that the accused used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. According to her, Sanju Devi visited her parental house 2-3 times. In cross-examination, she admitted that the accused did not make any demand before marriage, at the time of marriage and after marriage. After marriage, accused Anil visited parental house of the deceased and after spending a night returned back happily. It happened 3-4 times. She also admitted that they never lodged any report before the Panchayat or Police about the demand of dowry and ill-behaviour against the accused. She admitted that when her sister died, on those days marriage of Rali was being solemnized in the house of her in-laws and Baisakhi festival in their house. She admitted that her brother had gone to invite Sanju Devi, but she was not sent due to marriage of Rali. She admitted that her sister was of sensitive nature. She admitted that information of suicide was supplied by the accused. She also admitted that the accused had sufficient property for their livelihood. 12. PW7, Paras Ram, deposed that on 13.4.2002, he along with villagers went to the house of accused at Village Goju and noticed dead body of Sanju Devi lying on the floor. There were some marks around her neck. Two days before the suicide, Maya Devi had told him that accused did not send Sanju Devi to her house on the occasion of Baisakhi. She also told that the accused were maltreating her daughter for bringing insufficient dowry. 13. PW12, ASI Negi Ram, admitted in his cross-examination that mother-in-law of the deceased had arranged marriage of Ralli (local goddess) on that day in her house. He also admitted that mother-in-law of the deceased had gone to other house with Barat of Ralli. The deceased had committed suicide in her house when her mother-in-law and her husband along with other persons were away from their houses in the barat of Ralli. He also admitted that mother-in-law of the deceased had gone to other house with Barat of Ralli. The deceased had committed suicide in her house when her mother-in-law and her husband along with other persons were away from their houses in the barat of Ralli. He also admitted that it had come in his investigation that the accused had told brother of the deceased that due to marriage of Ralli in their house, they could not send the deceased to his house. 14. PW13, Kartar Chand, father of the deceased deposed that the accused used to taunt Sanju Devi for bringing insufficient dowry. He made the complaint to his relatives, who impressed upon accused Anil Kumar to mend his ways and not to maltreat and harass his wife. His wife told him that whenever she used to talk to the deceased on telephone, she used to tell her that she was being harassed and maltreated by the accused. In cross-examination, he deposed that on the occasion of engagement, the accused had put forth demand of clothes and they had given list of clothes required by them. He admitted that nothing was demanded by the accused when barat had come and at the time of marriage. He also admitted that the accused had not demanded anything from him after solemnization of the marriage. 15. What emerges from the facts, enumerated here-in-above, is that the relations between husband and wife were cordial. According to PW2, Ram Prashad, brother of the deceased, after marriage, his sister and accused Anil Kumar visited his house about fifteen times. They used to stay for about 3-4 days on every visit. Marriage was solemnized in a simple way as per custom. He also admitted that they never reported the matter about maltreatment before the Panchayat and the police. He also admitted that his sister was of sensitive nature. He also admitted that when he went to invite his sister at her matrimonial house, her mother-in-law told him that she would not send her because there was marriage of Rali in their house. PW3, Maya Devi, mother of the deceased also admitted that before marriage, at the time of marriage and after marriage, accused never demanded dowry from her. He also admitted that when he went to invite his sister at her matrimonial house, her mother-in-law told him that she would not send her because there was marriage of Rali in their house. PW3, Maya Devi, mother of the deceased also admitted that before marriage, at the time of marriage and after marriage, accused never demanded dowry from her. According to her, when her son returned home, he told her that the mother-in-law of deceased showed her inability to send Sanju Devi to her parental house due to marriage of Rali in their house. PW4, Des Raj, also admitted that the accused did not make any demand before marriage, at the time of marriage and after the marriage. PW6, Meena Devi, also admitted that her sister was of sensitive nature. They were informed about the suicide by the accused. She also admitted that they never lodged any report before the Panchayat or Police about the demand of dowry and ill-behaviour against the accused. She also admitted that her brother was sent to invite Sanju Devi, but she was not sent due to marriage of Rali. According to PW7, Paras Ram, two days before the suicide, Maya Devi had told him that accused did not send Sanju Devi to her house on the occasion of Baisakhi. However, Maya Devi while stepping into the witness box as PW3 has not stated that she told PW7, Paras Ram that her daughter was not sent to her house because of marriage of Rali. PW12 ASI, Negi Ram, has investigated the matter. He also admitted that the deceased had committed suicide in her house when her mother-in-law and her husband along with other persons were away from their houses in the barat of Ralli. Statement of PW13, Kartar Chand, father of the deceased is contrary to the statements of other relatives of the deceased. According to him, the accused had asked for clothes at the time of engagement. However, in further cross-examination, he admitted that no demand was ever raised by the accused when barat had come, at the time of marriage and after solemnization of the marriage. 16. The deceased Sanju Devi was not sent to her parental house by her in-laws with her brother for the simple reason that religious ceremony was to be performed in their house. 16. The deceased Sanju Devi was not sent to her parental house by her in-laws with her brother for the simple reason that religious ceremony was to be performed in their house. The accused never treated the deceased Sanju Devi with cruelty nor they harassed her to commit suicide. The deceased Sanju Devi was of sensitive nature as deposed by her brother and sister. The reason for committing suicide by the deceased could be that she was disturbed because she was not permitted to go to her parental house for celebration of Baisakhi fair. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused. 17. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis, made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds are ordered to be discharged. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.