Bhagi Rath vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—Two accused, namely, Bhagi Rath, husband and Parkash Chand, brother-in-law of deceased Smt. Urmala Devi were charged for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that Smt. Urmala Devi, sister of Sh. Dinu Ram PW 8 was married to accused/Appellant Bhagi Rath about fourteen years ago. Out of this marriage, they had three children. The prosecution alleges that the accused/Appellant used to maltreat his wife, beat her up and subjected to mental/physical violence. As a consequence of this treatment, it is alleged that Smt. Urmala Devi committed suicide on 4.2.1999 by jumping into a well. Both the accused were charged for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of trial, Sh. Parkash Chand was acquitted while accused/Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution story hinges around the star witness PW 8 Sh. Dinu Ram. He stated in his evidence that he has a sister, who was married to the Appellant. Two days prior to Rakhi, she had come to his house and told him that her husband used to maltreat her. Thereupon, he asked her that he would visit her house and talk to Jija (brother-in-law) i.e. the accused. When he went to her house to resolve the matter, he was slapped by the accused who told him to get out and not to interfere in his domestic affairs. Thereupon he went away and later on learnt that his sister has committed suicide. In cross-examination, he states that he never informed the police, Panchyat or any person with respect to the maltreatment meted out to his sister. Though he states in his cross-examination that he had informed the Panchyat members etc. but he does not remember their names. He has also been confronted with his statement recorded by the police, where some major contradictions are sought to be proved. Even if his statement in cross-examination is taken into consideration that his sister complained to him that she was maltreated and that when he went to resolve the matter, he was slapped by the Appellant and told not to interfere in his domestic affaires, he no where states in his examination-in-chief that he made a complaint with respect to this incident to any person or authority. This has been elicited from his cross-examination where he states that he had informed the Panchyat people, but he does not remember their names.

The next witness on which the reliance has been placed by learned Additional Advocate General is PW 1 Lauhali Devi, wife of Sh. Bala Ram. She also states that Urmila, deceased had told her that her husband was quarreling with him. In cross-examination, she states that she never saw them quarreling. She also states that Urmala used to say that she has reasons to suspect that her husband/accused was having illicit relations with another woman. What is significant to note in her statement is that she alleges the deceased having complained about the accused having illicit sexual relations with another woman but during the course of investigation, there is nothing on record, which shows or points to the fact that the accused was infect entangled with some other lady. Again the statement only establishes that the husband and wife used to quarrel. PW 2 Sh. Gian Chand says that he heard the deceased and the accused quarreling, but in cross-examination he admitted that they never quarreled in his presence. PW 3 Smt. Champa Devi was Ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchyat Passal. She states that she was Pradhan up to the year 2000. According to her, application Ex. P-B was submitted to her by the deceased, because her husband was quarreling and bickering with her. In cross-examination, she states that this application was never maintained in the Panchyat records. She states that before Ex. PB was submitted to her, the accused/Appellant had called her to his home and told her that her wife was leveling false allegations against him of having illicit sexual relations with another woman. No Panchyat meeting was called for taking follow up action on Ex. P-B. PW 4 Sh. Prakam Ram is the Secretary of Gram Panchyat, Passal. He states in his evidence that he had received application Ex. PB, whereupon he advised the deceased to inform the police vide endorsement Ex. PC. He admitted in his cross-examination that after submitting the application, deceased had visited the Panchyat and voluntarily stated that no action be taken on her application because the behavior of the Appellant/accused had improved. PW 7 Smt. Sudershana, states that she is the Pradhan of Mahila Mandal Sangehan and that the deceased used to complain to her that the accused/Appellant was quarreling with her and that sometimes he used to beat her up. In cross-examination, she states that this complaint was made to her about 10-11 times, but she did not report this matter to the police or any other authority, which according to her was a mistake on her part. PW 10 Dr. Sushil Chander, Medical Officer, performed the post mortem. The evidence of PW 11 Smt. Sawarna Devi is also stereo typed on the lines of other witnesses. This is the entire evidence on record with respect to the maltreatment of deceased. PW 17, Smt. Ram Dai has been declared hostile, although she was supposed to support the case of prosecution. Nothing material has come on record from her cross-examination.

Considering the entirety of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Parkash Chand, while holding that there was nothing on record to impaled him. Learned court holds that the evidence is sufficient to establish cruelty, which would invite penal consequences so far as the Petitioner is concerned.

Looking to the evidence on record, all that I find is that both the husband and wife were quarreling. Of course, the statement of PW 8 Dinu Ram is to the effect that a complaint was made to him by the deceased and he went to sort out the matter with the accused, who in turn slapped him. No body has seen the deceased and the accused quarreling or beating her up. No body states regarding the genesis of the quarrel, whether they were normal ordinary domestic quarrels which occur in every day life or the Appellant was a person who had propensity of having a vicious behavior, maltreated and subjected the deceased to mental or physical violence to a degree, wherein it had become impossible for her to live with him and there was no option for her except to end her life. There is nothing on record to show that she was deprived of essentials in life i.e. wearing apparels, food or shelter etc. All that I find from the evidence is that 2-3 so called Pradhan/members of Panchyat had stated that complaint was made to them by deceased about her maltreatment, but no efforts were made by them to report the matter to the police. This could be only in two situations. One that the quarrels were of such a nature, which would occur in normal course of domestic relationship or in alternative there were not a magnitude which would force the deceased to commit suicide. So far as Ex. PB is concerned, I do not find anything in it which shows that there were serious allegations about the behavior of the accused, which would drive the deceased to take the extreme step of ending her life. In these circumstances, I do not find that any cruelty can be attributed to the accused. I also do not find that there is any evidence worth the name that the deceased was treated with cruelty. I do not find that the prosecution has been able to establish the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, this appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant is quashed and set aside. The bail bonds furnished by the Petitioners are discharged.