Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 841 (HP)

Ram Singh v. State of H. P.

2022-12-19

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.7.2010/27.07.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kagra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 3-D/VII-2008, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence(s) Substantive sentence Fine Default Punishment. 498-A/34 IPC Simple imprisonment for three years Rs.5,000/- Simple imprisonment for six months 306 of the IPC Simple imprisonment for three years Rs. 5,000/- Simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of appeal, appellants No.2 and 3 have died and only appellant No.1 survives. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Sumna Devi was wife of the appellant No.1. She consumed poison on 18.07.2006 and as a result thereof died on 28.07.2006. Brother of deceased got recorded his statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. on 18.7.2006 and on its basis FIR No. 153/2006 was registered under section 498-A/34 IPC. 4. It was alleged in statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. that the appellant No.1 and deceased were married for the last about four years and had a daughter aged about three years from the wedlock. Complainant further alleged that his wife Seena Devi had disclosed to him about 3-5 months back that the deceased had complained about the demand of dowry and her harassment for such demand by the appellants. She had allegedly complained that she was being tortured and given beatings for demand of dowry. As per the complainant, he had remained silence assuming that it was normal wear and tear of life and had not taken the disclosure made by his wife seriously. He had received an information on 18.07.2006 at about 7.30 a.m. that his sister Sumana Devi was ill and was hospitalized. He telephonically contacted at the house of in-laws of Sumana Devi and got a response from her father-in-law that Sumana Devi had died in hospital at Dharamshala. On such information, complainant along with his relatives reached the hospital at Dharamshala and found that his sister was alive and was admitted in the hospital. Complainant also suspected that his sister was being ill-treated because the appellant No.1 had illicit relations with some other lady. 5. Postmortem report opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to pulmonary oedema and brain oedema under the circumstances of ingestion of poison “Aluminium Phosphide” and anemia. 6. Prosecution examined total 13 witnesses. Complainant also suspected that his sister was being ill-treated because the appellant No.1 had illicit relations with some other lady. 5. Postmortem report opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to pulmonary oedema and brain oedema under the circumstances of ingestion of poison “Aluminium Phosphide” and anemia. 6. Prosecution examined total 13 witnesses. PW-1 Piar Chand is the complainant and PW-2 Sheena Devi is his wife. PW-3 Jumloo Ram is the uncle of deceased Smt. Sumna Devi and PW-4 Smt. Kaushalya Devi is her mother. PW-5. Dr. D.P. Swami had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased. PW-8 Dr. V.D. Dogra, proved the treatment summary of deceased Smt. Sumana Devi as Ex.PW8/A. PW-6 HHC Kartar Singh, PW-9 ASI Surjeet Kumar, PW-10 ASI Onkar Nath, PW-11 S.I. Om Parkash, PW-12 ASI Vinod Kumar and PW-13 ASI Anil Kumar were the official witnesses of police. PW-7 Shiv Kumar was the photographer. 7. Learned trial Court held the offences proved against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as noticed above. 8. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 9. The police machinery was moved on the basis of statement of PW-1 made under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. The basis of recording of FIR Ex.PW10/B was the aforesaid statement. In the aforesaid statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. PW-1 had not disclosed any personal knowledge regarding ill-treatment of the deceased for dowry at the hands of her in-laws. Even with respect to the alleged illicit relations of appellant with some other lady, PW-1 had only suspicion. PW-1 while deposing before the learned trial Court again reiterated the same stand. He stated that after some time of marriage of Smt. Sumana Devi, his wife had informed him about the ill-treatment being given to Smt. Sumana Devi by her in-laws. He further stated that he had not taken the complaint of his wife seriously. He further disclosed that it was his wife only who had disclosed about the suspicion of appellant having illicit relations with other women of the village. 10. The wife of PW-1 Smt. Sheena Devi has also been examined as prosecution witness (PW-2). She has stated that Sumana Devi was treated by her in-laws well for about three years. He further disclosed that it was his wife only who had disclosed about the suspicion of appellant having illicit relations with other women of the village. 10. The wife of PW-1 Smt. Sheena Devi has also been examined as prosecution witness (PW-2). She has stated that Sumana Devi was treated by her in-laws well for about three years. She further stated that it had been disclosed to her by Sumana Devi about 3-4 months back that the appellant had illicit relations with some other lady of his village and the appellant used to maltreat Smt. Sumana Devi due to this reason. As per PW-2, parents of the appellant were also supporting the appellant. While being cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons, PW-2 stated that she had informed the police about the factum of illicit relations of the appellant, however, she was confronted with her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., wherein it was not found so recorded. She further disclosed during cross-examination that relations of appellant with Sumana Devi had turned strained for last about 6 months and before that she was carrying on well with her husband. She also admitted that the appellant had taken Smt. Sumana Devi for treatment to PGI Chandigarh. The daughter of deceased Smt. Sumana Devi was also stated to be looked after by accused persons only. 11. From the analysis of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 it is found that the prosecution case does not stand on sound footing. PW-2 nowhere stated that the deceased was being ill-treated by the appellant and his parents for demand of dowry. In fact, PW-2 did not utter even a single word regarding demand of dowry ever made by the appellant or his parents from the deceased. From such version of PW-2, the case as put forward by PW-1 by way of his statement under Section 154, Cr.P.C. or his deposition in the Court, is completely falsified. As per PW-1, the fact about ill-treatment of Smt. Sumana Devi by the appellant and his parents for demand of dowry was disclosed to him by PW-2, whereas the said witness i.e. PW-2 has remained silent on this aspect. 12. PW-3 Shri Jumloo Ram was the uncle of the deceased. As per PW-1, the fact about ill-treatment of Smt. Sumana Devi by the appellant and his parents for demand of dowry was disclosed to him by PW-2, whereas the said witness i.e. PW-2 has remained silent on this aspect. 12. PW-3 Shri Jumloo Ram was the uncle of the deceased. He deposed before the learned trial Court that about 4-5 months prior to her death, Smt. Sumna Devi had disclosed to him about her maltreatment for demand of dowry. He further stated that the appellant and his parents had demanded motorcycle and Rs. One lakh from the deceased, as per the disclosure made by her. 13. PW-4 Smt. Kaushalya Devi also stated before the learned trial Court during her deposition that the deceased had been complaining about her maltreatment at the hands of appellant and his parents for demand of dowry. In her cross-examination on behalf of the accused persons, PW-4 specifically stated that she had informed her son i.e. PW-1 regarding ill-treatment given to Sumana Devi. 14. There is nothing on record to suggest that any of the relatives of deceased including PW-1 to PW-4 had ever made any complaint to any authority regarding alleged ill-treatment of the deceased at the hands of her in-laws before her death. There is also nothing to suggest that the deceased herself had made any complaint to any authority in this regard at any point of time. PW-1 did not state that his mother was aware about the ill-treatment of Sumana Devi at the hands of her in-laws or PW-4 had ever disclosed to him about such fact. It is hard to assume that PW-1, in his first version given under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., would not have attributed source of his information to his mother. It is equally difficult to believe that if the mother and uncle of the deceased were aware about the alleged ill-treatment of deceased, PW-1 would not be aware of such fact. It would be quite unnatural that the mother and uncle of deceased were aware about the ill-treatment of deceased for dowry and they had not disclosed such fact to the brother of the deceased. PW-1 has not stated at any point of time that his mother and uncle were aware about the ill-treatment of deceased or they had disclosed it to him. PW-1 has not stated at any point of time that his mother and uncle were aware about the ill-treatment of deceased or they had disclosed it to him. Rather, PW-1 attributed his source of information to his wife and as noticed above, his wife did not utter even a single word regarding ill-treatment of deceased for dowry. 15. Though, it has been proved on record that the deceased died as a result of consumption of poison, but it remained to be proved that the poison was consumed by her in order to commit suicide abetted by the appellant or any of his family members. In the absence of prove of demand of dowry by the appellant or his family members from the deceased or her ill-treatment for such reason, no presumption could have been drawn against them of abetment under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act. 16. Except for the statements of PW-1 to PW-4, the prosecution had not led any evidence to prove the factum of alleged ill-treatment of deceased at the hands of her in-laws that too for demand of dowry. Thus, the factum of such ill-treatment or demand of dowry has not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. The prosecution has failed in this regard in meeting the degree of proof as required in law. 17. Further, there is no evidence on record, save and except, the bald statement of PW-2 regarding illicit relationship of appellant with some other lady. Though, such suspicion was shown by PW-1 to the police on the very first day when he got recorded his statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., but no investigation appears to have been made to that effect and consequently no material has been placed on record to prove such fact. 18. On the basis of material on record, it can be said that the learned trial Court has clearly misread and mis-appreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Prosecution carries a very heavy burden of proof in a criminal trial and as held above, the prosecution has been found wanting in meeting the required standards of proof in the facts of instant case. 19. The prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. Prosecution carries a very heavy burden of proof in a criminal trial and as held above, the prosecution has been found wanting in meeting the required standards of proof in the facts of instant case. 19. In result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.7.2010/27.07.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 3-D/VII-2008, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the appellant. Records be sent back forthwith.