Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 259 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nirmala Devi

2024-04-20

VIRENDER SINGH, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2024
JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 30.03.2013, passed by Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No.13-G/VII-2012, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Nirmala Devi, whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted in a case FIR No.115 of 2011 dated 04.08.2011, registered in Police Station, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General and learned arguing counsel Mr.Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate, and have also gone through the entire record. 3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that deceased Nisha Devi, daughter of PW.1 Leela Devi was married to one Sudhir Kumar in November 2007 and the couple was blessed with a girl child. However, Sudhir Kumar died in March 2011. Nisha Devi was employed as a Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Dodhu. Respondent used to taunt her on various counts and used to demand dowry and due to cruelty of respondent, Nisha Devi, on 01.08.2011, drove her Scooty alongwith her daughter to bridge of Nadaun on river Beas and after parking Scooty threw her daughter in river Beas and, thereafter, committed suicide by jumping in the river. 4. PW.2 Manoj Kumar running Dhaba near Beas bridge informed Police Station, Nadaun, regarding the incident. Police came on the spot recorded statement of Manoj Kumar and sister and Mausa of deceased Nisha Devi came to the spot after knowing about suicide by Nisha Devi. 5. On 02.08.2011, a written application allegedly submitted by PW.1 Leela Devi (mother of deceased), was received in Police Station Nadaun, alleging demand of dowry and cruel behaviour and harassment by respondent deriving Nisha Devi to commit suicide. The said application was marked by SHO to PW.6 Onkar Singh, who, after preliminary inquiry, submitted his report that matter was pertaining to Police Station Jawalamukhi, after recording Daily Diary Entry No.10(A) Ex.PW.8/A dated 04.08.2011 at 8.15 a.m. in Police Station Nadaun by PW.8 HC Sanjay Kumar. 6. On receiving aforesaid complaint, through HHG Anuj Kumar, Daily Diary Report No.15(A) Ex.PW.9/A dated 04.08.2011 at 2.30 p.m by PW.9 Mohammad Hussain was recorded in Police Station Jawalamukhi and, thereafter, further inquiry was conducted through Police Station Jawalamukhi. PW.13 ASI Raghubir Singh, Investigating Officer, on 04.08.2011 at 3.30 p.m., recorded statement of PW.1 Leela Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C., in her Village Jatoli Chakra. PW.13 ASI Raghubir Singh, Investigating Officer, on 04.08.2011 at 3.30 p.m., recorded statement of PW.1 Leela Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C., in her Village Jatoli Chakra. On the basis of statement of Leela Devi, FIR Ex.PW.10/A was registered which was signed by PW.10 ASI Surjeet Singh. Dead Body of Nisha Devi was found in Pong Dam on 5.08.2011. Her postmortem was conducted by PW.4 Dr. Satish Chaudhary. On 09.08.2011, dead body of daughter of Nisha Devi was also found. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by PW.12 Dr.Gurmit Singh. 7. On completion of investigation, PW.11 SI Manohar Lal prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 8. Factum of commission of suicide by Nisha Devi, and before that throwing her daughter in the river by Nisha Devi, recovery and postmortems of their dead bodies are not in dispute. The point of contest between the prosecution and the respondent is whether Nisha Devi killed her daughter and committed suicide on account of cruelty, harassment and demand of dowry on the part of respondent or not. 9. To assess the counter claims of parties, statement of PW.1 Leela Devi (mother of deceased) and statement of PW.3 Babli (sister of deceased) are relevant. PW.5 Neelam Devi, Ward Panch, has been examined by prosecution to corroborate the behaviour of respondent after death of Nisha Devi and her daughter. It has come on record as also admitted by PW.3 Babli, PW.6 Onkar Singh and PW.13 Raghubir Singh that on the date of incident, i.e. 01.08.2011, sister of deceased namely Babli (PW.3), Anita Mausi and Mausa of deceased Nisha Devi came to Nadaun bridge and their statements were recorded by PW.6 Onkar Singh. According to PW.6 Onkar Singh, PW.3 Babli had disclosed that after death of husband of Nisha Devi, she remained under depression and till that time, no allegations were made against the respondent by deceased Nisha Devi. Though PW.3 Babli has denied of making such statement with further improvement that she had disclosed to the police in her statement that deceased Nisha Devi was being pressurized to perform marriage with younger brother of her deceased husband, but she has been confronted with her statement recorded by PW.6 Onkar Singh, wherein it was not so recorded. Though PW.3 Babli has denied of making such statement with further improvement that she had disclosed to the police in her statement that deceased Nisha Devi was being pressurized to perform marriage with younger brother of her deceased husband, but she has been confronted with her statement recorded by PW.6 Onkar Singh, wherein it was not so recorded. Pressurizing for solemnizing second marriage has not been stated by PW.1 Leela Devi, who is mother of deceased and PW.3 Babli has levelled allegation for the first time in the Court. It appears to be an afterthought to create ground to justify allegation against the respondent. In complaint dated 02.08.2011 alleged to have been submitted by PW.1 Leela Devi, there is reference of demand of dowry without any specific demand and utterance of respondent after the incident stating that Nisha Devi has eaten her son. It has also been stated in the complaint that deceased used to tell her mother on telephone about harassment by her mother-in-law, i.e. respondent. 10. Neither in the statement of PW.1 Leela Devi nor in the statement of PW.3 Babli, there is any reference of specific demand of dowry made by the respondent. Rather, PW.1 Leela Devi in her cross-examination has admitted that respondent never demanded any dowry articles from her. 11. Though PW.1 Leela Devi has expressed her ignorance about the fact that after death of husband of her daughter, respondent gave up her share in favour of her deceased daughter and minor grand-daughter. However, it is relevant to refer that Investigating Officer, PW.13 ASI Raghubir Singh has categorically admitted that after death of husband of deceased Nisha Devi, respondent Nirmala gave up her claim of monetary benefits in favour of deceased Nisha Devi and her deceased daughter. It has also been admitted by PW.1 Leela Devi as well as PW.13 ASI Raghubir Singh, Investigating Officer, that deceased Ruhani used to stay with respondent when her mother (deceased Nisha Devi) was leaving home for attending her duties, meaning thereby respondent, being grandmother, was also looking after her grand-daughter Ruhani during duty/service hours of deceased Nisha Devi. Sometimes Nisha Devi used to take her child with her. 12. Sometimes Nisha Devi used to take her child with her. 12. Another instance to prove harassment/cruelty by the respondent to deceased Nisha Devi is that when PW.1 Leela Devi alongwith Pradhan Suman Bala and Ward Panch Neelam Devi went to in-laws of deceased Nisha Devi after committing suicide by Nisha Devi, respondent was weeping and was saying “Chudel Khud To Mar Gai Aur Mere Ladke Ko Bhi Kha Gai” . Referring this statement in statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., PW.1 Leela Devi had stated that conduct of respondent was not liked by her. It is also relevant to refer admission of PW.5 Neelam Devi, who happened to be Ward Panch, and was accompanying PW.1 Leela Devi and others to the house of respondent, wherein she has admitted that at that time respondent was under shock and was weeping furiously. Respondent had lost her son three months before committing suicide by her daughter-in-law after killing her grand-daughter. In such a situation, utterance of aforesaid words may not amount to cruelty, particularly when no such allegation during the lifetime of the deceased has been alleged by PW.1 Leela Devi, PW.3 Babli or any other prosecution witness. 13. Sister of deceased Nisha Devi and Gram Panchayat Pradhan Suman Bala were given up by the prosecution and were not examined in the Court. 14. In aforesaid facts and circumstances and evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is no sufficient material to prove proximity of commission of suicide by deceased Nisha Devi with behaviour attributed to respondent and there is no cogent, reliable and convincing evidence to establish that deceased Nisha was derived to commit suicide on account of cruelty on the part of respondent. Respondent has been acquitted by the Trial Court and appellant-State has failed to point out any trustworthy relevant evidence to rebut the presumption of innocence of the respondent-accused. 15. No ground for interference in the impugned judgment is made out. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit, so also pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the Trial Court be immediately sent back.