Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 365 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Jagat Pal

2015-04-17

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment, rendered on 27.12.2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 49/7 of 2004, whereby the accused/respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant PW-3 Barfi Ram recorded statement Ex.PW3/A with PW-10 Bachiter Singh under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., on 4.2.2004 alleging that he is a resident of village Damehda, Police Station Talai and is a teacher. His younger brother Gian Chand died in 1995, whose eldest daughter Sumna Devi was married by him in April, 2003 with accused Jagat Pal. After 2-3 months of marriage, her mother-in-law accused Byasan Devi and her husband Jagat Pal started harassing her on the pretext of her being involved in witchcraft. The deceased Sumna had come to pass “Kala” month in August, 2003 at her parents house but was taken back after eight days. Accused Jagat Pal and Byasan Devi also alleged that Sumna's mother Leela Devi was indulging in witchcraft and started torturing her on this count. He, his wife, Sumna's uncle and aunt had visited her in-laws house in October, 2003 where she told about the harassment being given to her by accused Jagat Pal and Bayasan Devi. Their efforts to make the accused appreciate the things were of no consequence and the alleged maltreatment continued. On the day of lodging of the report, he received a telephonic message from accused Swaru to reach at Badsar Hospital immediately whereafter he went there and found accused Jagat Pal, Swaru Ram and Byasan Devi there and Sumna Devi was admitted in the Hospital and was in unconscious state. He was told that Sumna Devi had consumed some poisonous substance at which she has been brought to Hospital and has been declared dead. The complaint thus alleged about Sumna having consumed some poison having been forced to die by accused Jagat Pal and Bayasan Devi on the count of small matters. The aforesaid statement was sent to Police Station after making an endorsement on it by PW-10 ASI Bachiter Singh, on the basis of which FIR was recorded in the Police Station. The investigation was carried out by the police. The aforesaid statement was sent to Police Station after making an endorsement on it by PW-10 ASI Bachiter Singh, on the basis of which FIR was recorded in the Police Station. The investigation was carried out by the police. During the course of investigation, inquest report was prepared, post mortem of the dead body of the deceased was got conducted from the Medical Officer and post mortem report was obtained by the police, statements of the witnesses were recorded. The viscera of the deceased as well as the vomit material of the deceased were sent for examination to FSL, Junga and report in this regard was obtained. 3. After completion of the necessary investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused/appellants, challan was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The accused/respondents were charged for theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC by the learned trial Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded by the learned trial Court, in which they claimed false implication and pleaded innocence. In defence, the respondents/accused have examined four witnesses. 6. On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306, IPC. 7. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional 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 the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross misappreciation of the material on record. Hence, they contend that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ accused, 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. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ accused, 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. Accused Jagat Pal was married to deceased Sumna on 16.04.2003. The alleged occurrence took place on 4.2.2004. PW-3 Barfi Ram lodged complaint Ex.PW3/A. The deceased, as unraveled by postmortem report Ex.PX, died on account of consumption of poison. Though, her death is not homicidal rather is suicidal, however, in the face of the alleged inculpatory acts of maltreatment and ill-treatment meted out by the accused to the deceased, the latter is hence canvassed by the prosecution to have been actuated to commit suicide. 11. For proving the contents of Ex.PW3/A lodged at the instance of PW-3 Barfi Ram, the latter stepped into the witness box. However, during the course of the recording of his testimony, he has deposed the factum of deceased Sumna having remained in connubial bliss at her matrimonial home for a brief period after her marriage. However, he proceeds to depose that thereafter accused Jagat Pal was put to frail health besides, he deposes that in the “Kala Mahina” she left for her mother's house for only eight days and was called back, even when tradition enjoins that she throughout the “Kala Mahina” remain at her parents' house. The ill-treatment and harassment meted out by the accused to the deceased is comprised in the fact of the accused alleging that on account of her mother having practiced witchcraft accused Jagat Pal was put to ill health, as also in the fact of the accused asking the deceased to bring money for his treatment. He has deposed that on 28.10.2003, he along with his wife Leela, Soma Devi, Bhago Devi and Jagan Nath went to the house of the accused to prevail upon them to desist from harassing the deceased. Ultimately the occurrence took place on 4.2.2004. However, the facts aforesaid as deposed by this witness in his examination-in-chief do not find occurrence in his previous statement recorded in writing. Ultimately the occurrence took place on 4.2.2004. However, the facts aforesaid as deposed by this witness in his examination-in-chief do not find occurrence in his previous statement recorded in writing. Consequently, the version as spelt out by this witness in Court during the course of the recording of his examination-in-chief acquires the taint of embellishment or improvement, as such, does not inspire the confidence of this Court. 12. The deposition of PW-4 Leela Devi, the mother of the deceased as comprised in her examination-in-chief is in corroboration to the testimony of PW-3 therein she attributes acts of harassment, ill-treatment and maltreatment constituting actuatory or instigatory acts for the deceased to commit suicide. The narration as existing in her examination-in-chief while also constituting embellishments and improvements arising from the facts deposed therein not occurring in her previous statement recorded in writing, renders her deposition too un-inspiring and legally un-worthwhile. Moreover, the deposition of PW-5, Soma Devi comprised in her examination-in-chief while disclosing therein that she had been apprised by deceased Sumna Devi qua the fact of hers being taunted by her inlaws and theirs conspiring to kill her, appears to be ingenuously invented besides an improvement especially when the said fact has remained un-deposed by both PW-3 and PW- 4. Consequently, when her deposition on oath is in contradiction to the depositions of PW-3 and PW-4, it is rendered legally inefficacious. Moreover, the deposition of PW-5 of her having been telephonically revealed by the deceased about the ill-treatment and maltreatment having been meted out to the latter by the accused is also not credible in the face of the fact aforesaid deposed by her in her examination-in-chief having remained undivulged by her to the police during the course of the recording of her previous statement by the former, as such, constitutes the version deposed in Court to be an improvement and embellishment and in aftermath it being un-inspiring. 13. PW-6 Rinku Ram is the brother of the deceased, he in his examination-in-chief deposes that when accused Jagat Ram, his brother-in-law, returned home after receiving treatment at Chandigarh, he had visited him to inquire about his health yet the accused extended threats to kill him. 13. PW-6 Rinku Ram is the brother of the deceased, he in his examination-in-chief deposes that when accused Jagat Ram, his brother-in-law, returned home after receiving treatment at Chandigarh, he had visited him to inquire about his health yet the accused extended threats to kill him. However, the said fact not occurring in his previous statement recorded in writing renders his deposition comprised in his examination-in-chief unfolding the fact aforesaid to be bereft of veracity arising from its constituting an improvement and an embellishment. PW-7 Jagar Nath, too deposed that when on 28.10.2003 he in the company of Soma Devi went to the house of the accused, they on arriving near their house noticed the accused quarreling with deceased Sumana and at that time Barfi Ram, Bhago and Leela also arrived, though conveying the factum of the accused while taking to use filthy language against the deceased, as such, harassed the deceased, besides, having meted out ill-treatment and maltreatment to her which constituted a potent instigatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide, yet the above deposition of PW-7 on oath is wholly incredible, in the face of PW-5 having omitted to depose the facts aforesaid during the course of the recording of her examination-in-chief in Court. Consequently, PW- 7 deposes an invented fact or deposes in contradiction to the deposition of PW-5, as such, for existence of intra se contradictions in their respective testimonies especially qua the version as spelt out by PW-7, wherein he has attributed the meeting of ill-treatment and maltreatment to the deceased by the accused renders it to be imbued with inveracity. Even though, PW-8, Rajindera Kumari has deposed that the mother of the deceased complained to her twice-thrice of the maltreatment or ill-treatment meted out by the accused to her daughter. Nonetheless, her deposition too is per se invented and hence unreliable while contradicting both PW-4 Leela Devi and PW-3 Barfi Ram, who both have omitted to, in their depositions unfold the factum of theirs having qua the purported incriminatory acts of the accused comprised in their meeting out maltreatment and ill-treatment to the deceased, lodged a complaint with the police or the Panchayat concerned. 14. The evidence on record as comprised in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses is hazy and nebulous, besides discrepant constituted by improvements, embellishments over their previous statements recorded in writing and intra se contradictions in their respective testimonies. 14. The evidence on record as comprised in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses is hazy and nebulous, besides discrepant constituted by improvements, embellishments over their previous statements recorded in writing and intra se contradictions in their respective testimonies. Moreover, assuming even if, some trifling and trivialing incidents of tauntings were meted out by the accused to the deceased yet evidence of potency thereof or the magnitude of tauntings and theirs hence constituting a potent instigatory and actuatory factor for the deceased to commit suicide does not surge forth. For lack of evidence of potency of tauntings meted out by the accused to the deceased and theirs having fomented the deceased to commit suicide, no conclusion can be formed that the purported trifling and trivial incidents had goaded the deceased to commit suicide, more especially when the purported incident of maltreatment or ill-treatment enunciated by the prosecution witnesses to have occurred in the month of October, 2010, is improximate to the fateful incident which stood consummated on 4.2.2004. In aftermath given the improximity of the purported incident of maltreatment and ill-treatment, with the fateful occurrence, the conclusion is that the effect thereof cannot be concluded to have been carried till the fateful occurrence which took place on 4.2.2014 hence at a time remotely distanced from it. In sequel, even if any trifling and trivial incident of maltreatment or illtreatment attributed to the accused took place with the deceased at her matrimonial home, the fact that the fateful occurrence was not consummated within a short proximity thereof renders, the improximate fateful occurrence to be not, hence, facilitating the marshalling and mobilizing of an inference that it was the actuatory and fomentary cause for the deceased to commit suicide. 15. On a formation of the aforesaid conclusion, the concomitant deduction is that the prosecution has been unable to prove the guilt of the accused. 16. In view of above, we find that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court below, are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, the findings do not necessitate irreverence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit and the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court is affirmed and maintained. Records of the learned trial Court be sent down forthwith.