Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 549 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Sharda Devi

2016-04-25

RAJIV SHARMA, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 29.2.2008 rendered by the Sessions Judge, Una in Sessions Case No. 12 of 2005 whereby the respondent accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that daughter of the complainant Som Nath was married to accused son Vinod Paul in accordance with Hindu rites at Nangal Jarialan Village in District Una in the year 1995. She started living in the matrimonial home. Her husband went abroad. For sometime, after the marriage, Anjana Devi’s husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law, according to the complainant, treated her well. Thereafter, accused started ill treating and taunting her about domestic chores. As and when Anjana Devi went to the house of her parents, she complained to her parents that her mother-in-law always harassed her by taunting her on trivial matters. The marriage of complainant’s younger son Ravi Kumar was solemnized on 28.11.2003. Anjana Devi and her husband also attended the marriage. At that time, complainant complained to his son-in-law about the conduct of his mother. The son-in-law gave an assurance that he would ask his mother not to harass Anjana Devi. On 15.3.2004, complainant received telephonic information that his daughter has died by consuming poison. On 17.3.2004, complainant reported the matter to the police. The police got the post-mortem conducted. Cause of death was consumption of phosphide poison. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She denied having subjected Anjana Devi with cruelty or abetted her to commit suicide. The trial court acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G. has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala has supported the judgment rendered by the learned trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment meticulously. 7. PW-1 Som Nath has testified that Anjana Devi was his daughter. Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G. has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala has supported the judgment rendered by the learned trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment meticulously. 7. PW-1 Som Nath has testified that Anjana Devi was his daughter. She was married to accused’s son Vinod Paul in the year 1995. Vinod Paul was staying in Dubai for the past about 15 years. Ever since her marriage with Vinod Paul, Anjana Devi was residing in her matrimonial house with her mother-in-law. Vinod Paul used to visit his house as and when he came from Dubai. Two children, a son and a daughter were born out of wedlock. Accused used to complain that she has not brought anything from her parents. The marriage of his son Ravi Kumar was solemnized in the year 2003. His daughter and her husband Vinod Paul also attended the marriage. Accused started ill-treating Anjana Devi saying Vinod Paul was the only son-in-law of Anjana Devi’s parents and they had not given him even a gold ring. On 15.3.2004, he received telephonic intimation from unidentified relative that Anjana Devi has died by fall from the roof. He suspected that his daughter was in fact killed by accused Sharda Devi. He lodged FIR on 17.3.2004. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that all functions at the house of accused used to be managed by his son Madan Lal. He has also admitted that there are number of residential houses in the neighbourhood of accused house in which Anjana used to reside. He has also admitted that Anjana Devi was literate and wise. She was on regular conversation on telephone. He has admitted that father in-law of Anjana Devi also used to reside in the same house. Anjana Devi was living jointly with her in-laws and she did not have separate mess. He also admitted that on being informed about the demise of Anjana Devi, his son Madan Lal and his wife Anita went to Community Health Centre, Gagret where Anjana Devi was taken for treatment. He also admitted that he attended the funeral of Anjana Devi. He and his younger son Ravi Kumar had gone to the house of accused and demanded from her golden ornaments belonging to the deceased. 8. He also admitted that he attended the funeral of Anjana Devi. He and his younger son Ravi Kumar had gone to the house of accused and demanded from her golden ornaments belonging to the deceased. 8. PW-2 Jeewan Lata has testified that Anjana Devi was her husband’s niece. She was married to the accused son Vinod Paul in the year 1995. Ever since her marriage with Vinod Paul, deceased was residing in the matrimonial house in Nangal Jarliana village. She used to complain that her mother-in-law always criticized her for not bringing anything from her parents. She also used to quote her mother-in-law that her mother has not trained her in domestic chores. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that deceased used to visit her parents twice or thrice a year. She also admitted that Anjana Devi never wrote to her about the alleged mal-treatment meted out to her by the accused. She has also admitted that Anjana Devi never talked to her on telephone. She had made statement to the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. that deceased used to complain to her mother in her presence. Confronted with her statement Ex.PW-2/A, in which this fact is not stated. 9. PW-3 Rajneesh Kaushal has testified that he was Pandit by caste. He was Kul Purohit of the family of deceased. The marriage of deceased Anjana Devi’s brother Ravi was solemnized in the month of November, 2003. All ladies of the village except deceased Anjana Devi accompanied the marriage party of Ravi. On his asking why she also had not gone with the marriage party like other ladies, she replied that she did not go because of her son being toddler and she had strict instructions from her mother-in-law that she would be responsible in case the child fell sick. Later, he went for Katha in the house of Anjana Devi’s parents. She disclosed that her mother-inlaw always ill treated her. In his cross-examination he has admitted that Anjana Devi and her husband Vinod Paul had attended the marriage of Ravi. He also admitted that deceased and her husband had gone back to their house about 2 days after the marriage of Ravi. He did not recollect the date on which Katha was to be recited by him at the house of Anjana Devi’s parents. 10. PW-4 Dr. N.S. Dogra has conducted the post mortem of deceased Anjana alongwith Dr. He also admitted that deceased and her husband had gone back to their house about 2 days after the marriage of Ravi. He did not recollect the date on which Katha was to be recited by him at the house of Anjana Devi’s parents. 10. PW-4 Dr. N.S. Dogra has conducted the post mortem of deceased Anjana alongwith Dr. V.K. Raizada. The post mortem report is Ex.PW-4/A. In their opinion, the cause of death of Anjana Devi was phosphide poison. 11. PW-6 Maya Devi has testified that Anjana Devi was her daughter. She was married to accused son Vinod Paul in the year 1995. Two children, one daughter and one son were born from the wedlock. As and when Anjana Devi came to their house she always complained against the illtreatment meted out to her by the accused. Anjana Devi told her that accused used to taunt her. She used to send her back to her in-laws. The accused expected some valuable gifts from them. She admitted in her cross- examination that the entire family of Anjana Devi’s in-laws was living jointly in a single house. She also admitted that she, her husband and sons were on visiting terms with Anjana Devi’s in-laws. 12. PW-10 SI Om Parkash has testified that the matter was handed over to him for investigation. He went to Community Health Centre, Gagret where Anjana Devi daughter of complainant Som Nath was stated to have died. He prepared inquest reports Ex.PW-10/A and Ex.PW-10/B. The post mortem report is Ex.PW-4/A and MLC is Ex.PW-5/C. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were number of residential houses in the neighbourhood of the accused in village Nangal Jarialan. 13. The marriage between the deceased and Vinod Paul was solemnized 15 years back. Vinod Paul was residing at Dubai. The incident has happened on 15.3.2004. However, the FIR was registered on 17.3.2004 vide FIR Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 Som Nath has admitted that all functions at the house of accused used to be managed by his son Madan Lal and he used to visit the house of deceased. He has admitted that he had attended the funeral of Anjana Devi alongwith other members of his community. PW-1 Som Nath alongwith his son Ravi Kumar had gone to the house of accused and demanded golden ornaments. He has admitted that he had attended the funeral of Anjana Devi alongwith other members of his community. PW-1 Som Nath alongwith his son Ravi Kumar had gone to the house of accused and demanded golden ornaments. PW-2 Jeewan Lata has also admitted that Anjana Devi used to visit her parents twice or thrice in a year. She has also admitted that Anjana Devi had never talked to her on telephone. She never entered into correspondence with her. Statement of PW-3 Rajneesh Kaushal does not inspire confidence. He did not recollect the date of marriage of Ravi. He did not recollect the date on which Katha was recited at the house of deceased parents. The complainant has never lodged any complaint with the Police or Panchayat or other relations. The marriage was solemnized in the year 1995 and the incident has happened on 15.3.2004. There is sufficient evidence on record that there were number of houses in the neighbourhood of the house of deceased, but no inquiry has been made from the occupants of these houses why Anjana Devi has ended her life. The prosecution has not led tangible evidence to prove that accused had treated the deceased with cruelty compelling her to commit suicide. Even as per the case of prosecution, complaint was made by Anjana Devi only in the year 2003 when the marriage of her younger brother was solemnized. Anjana Devi used to visit her parents house frequently. The marriage of her younger brother was also attended by her husband. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused has ill-treated Anjana Devi with a view to compel her to commit suicide or to fulfill any illegal demand of the accused. 14. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for offences punishable under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment dated of the learned Sessions Judge, Una. 15. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.