Dilbag Singh and Others vs State of H.P. and Others

S.N.Phukan, C.J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, camp at Nalagarh, dated 18.5.1991 in Sessions trial case No. 1-NL/7 of 1990/88. By the said judgment, learned Additional Sessions Judge found accused-Appellants Dilbag Singh, Smt. Vaishno Devi and Smt. Sudershana Devi guilty under Sections 498A/306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted them accordingly. All the three accused-Appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- each u/s 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each u/s 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentences will run concurrently.

Accused Dilbag Singh is the son of accused Smt. Vaishno Devi and accused Smt. Sudershana Devi is the daughter of accused Vaishno Devi. It is not disputed that marriage between accused Dilbag Singh and deceased Anita daughter of Hardiyal Singh (PW-1) was solemnised on 14.10.1984 and on 8.6.1986 Anita died. According to the prosecution, deceased Anita committed suicide as a result of harassment caused to her by all the accused-Appellants as her parents could not meet the demand of further dowry of Rs. 20,000/-. It may be noted here that in this case though police went to the Hospital, where deceased Anita died, immediately after her death and the First Information Report was recorded on 11.6.1986, no action was taken by the police for investigation of the case. However, the accused were arrested after one year of the incident. In fact, PW-1 Hardiyal Singh, father of deceased Anita, had to write letters to the Chief Minister and Director General of police to take action. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, rightly took note of this lapse on the part of the police while appreciating the evidence on record.

The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined 17 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded by the learned trial Court. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and from the trend of the cross-examination it appears that according to the accused persons deceased Anita committed suicide as her father used to visit her in-laws place in the evening in drunken condition and used to stay in the night. He also used to wet the bed and vomit in the house. In view of the above behaviour of her father in the house of her in-laws deceased Anita could not tolerate Such action of her father and committed suicide. The accused persons have examined as many as four witnesses in defence.

I have heard Mr. A.K. Goel, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Mohan Lal Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the Respondent-State.

I have also perused the impugned judgment and I find that the learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record and while doing so took precaution of the statements recorded during the investigation in view of the faulty and delayed investigation by the police.

Let me take a bird''s eye view of the evidence on record.

PW-1 Hardiyal Singh is the father of deceased Anita. He has stated that marriage between Anita and accused Dilbag Singh was performed on 14.10.1984 and after about 7/8 months of the marriage it came to his notice that Anita was loosing weight and used to remain sad. Accordingly, he asked his wife Smt. Multan Devi (PW-2) to enquire from Anita as to what was wrong. He was informed that according to Anita a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which was promised as a dowry should be paid to the in-laws of Anita and in case of non-payment she would be done to death by her husband accused Dilbag Singh, mother-in-law accused Vaishno Devi and sister-in-law accused Sudershana Devi. According to him, during marriage he spent Rs. 50,000/- or Rs. 60,000/- on dowry, even without any demand from the in-laws of deceased Anita. He has also stated that accused Dilbag Singh and her mother accused Vaishno Devi demanded a T.V. set and it was given by him at the time of marriage. According to him, Rs. 20,000/- could not be paid because of the marriage of his son Trilok Singh, which was held on 11.5.1986. He has further deposed that he invited his son-in-law accused Dilbag Singh and other members of his family to attend the marriage of his son. He alongwith his wife (PW-2) went to Jallandhur, the place of working of accused Dilbag Singh, to invite him for the marriage, but he refused to attend the same as he would not be able to get leave and could come only in the event of sanctioning of leave. He has made categorical statement that none from the house of his son-in-law''s family attended the marriage. He went personally and brought his daughter deceased Anita on 26th April and on return from the house of the in-laws of deceased Anita, she told him that he should pay Rs. 20,000/-, as demanded. According to this witness, on way deceased Anita started weeping informing that both her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, accused Vaishno'' Devi and Sudershana Devi, respectively, had been maltreating her badly because of non-payment of Rs. 20,000/-. On 1st of June, 1986 this witness returned from Shimla and his wife (PW-2) informed him that accused Dilbag Singh accompanied by Balbir Singh of his village came to their house at about 9.30 p.m. on 31.5.1986 and had asked his wife (PW-2) to send back deceased Anita to her in-laws'' house. Anita was not present at that time as she had gone with her sister and other ladies of the village to Hanpura. His wife (PW-2) also told him that accused Dilbag Singh had threatened in an insulting manner informing her that he would kill deceased Anita in case she did not return to his house. According to PW-2, accused Dilbag Singh and his friend left their house the same night at about 11.30 p.m. without taking meals. On 8th of June, 1986 PW-2 informed this witness (PW-1) that she had sent Anita with her younger brother Ashok Kumar to the house of accused Dilbag Singh. On 8th of June, this witness (PW-1) went to the house of accused Dilbag Singh and met his daughter deceased Anita when both accused Vaishno Devi and Sudershana Devi were present. He has further stated that deceased Anita wanted to know whether he had received a "Rukka" (letter) sent by her. When this witness wanted to know from deceased Anita that what was written in that letter, he pointed out towards her mother-in-law and sister-in-law and indicated that she would not be allowed to talk with PW-1. When accused Vaishno Devi wanted to go inside for preparing tea for this witness, deceased Anita told her that her father (PW-1) would not take tea and accordingly he (PW-1) left the place after taking water only at about 7.30 a.m. On the same night, that is, on 8th June, Gagan (DW-1), uncle of accused Dilbag Singh came to his house and after waking him told him that deceased Anita had developed severe pain in the stomach and he should go immediately. On being asked about the whereabouts of deceased Anita, Gagan told him that she was lying on the road at a distance of about 100 yards from his house to where she had been brought. He alongwith his wife (PW-2) went and saw accused Vaishno Devi and Sudershana Devi and Gagan (DW-2), his wife Satya Devi and Balbir Singh and a friend of accused sitting in a car and his daughter was lying on the ground near a well across the road. When this witness talk to deceased Anita to find out what is wrong, she was not in a position to speak and tears were flowing from her eyes. Thereafter, deceased Anita was taken to Nalagarh Hospital at about 11.30 p.m., but the Doctor could not administer any medicine including injection and after about 20 minutes Doctor declared that she was dead. Police was informed and they arrived at the Hospital. According to this witness, before arrival of the police accused persons Vaishno Devi Sudershana and also Gagan, his wife Satya and Balbir Singh left the Hospital and they were not traceable in the Hospital. In the morning he contacted Dy. S.P. on phone and narrated the whole incident. Dy. S.P. Shri Kewal Ram, accompanied by Station House Officer and other members of the police arrived at the Hospital and on being asked by this witness, the police directed that post-mortem examination should be conducted. He also informed accused Dilbag Singh and his son Trilok Singh by sending telegrams. After post-mortem, the dead-body was handed over to him and he cremated her. On return from Haridwar after performing the last rites of his daughter he returned home on 11th June and police also arrived at his house in the morning at about 8-9 a.m. and recorded his statement, which was duly signed by him. Ex. PA is his statement. Regarding �Rukka'' alleged to have been sent by deceased Anita to him, it has come out in the evidence that the same was handed over to a driver of a vehicle and it was handed over to him in October, 1989 by one Amar Singh, which was handed over by this witness to the Public Prosecutor and marked under objection as Ex. PI. As police was not arresting the accused persons, he wrote letters to the Chief Minister, I.G. Police and S.S.P. Solan and after about one year of the incident one Inspector from Solan went to this witness and thereafter accused Dilbag Singh was taken in custody. In cross-examination, prosecution has brought out in evidence that the statement made by this witness in the Court was not made during investigation including the demand for dowry of Rs.20,000/- and also the statement of deceased Anita to him while coining to his house for the marriage of his son that she was being mal-treated and beaten by the accuddd persons for non-payment of dowry.

PW-2 Multan Devi has also stated in the same line as PW-1 and she has further added that deceased Anita told her that according to her mother-in-law she could not bear a child because of affect of some ill-spirit. In cross-examination also it has been brought out that she did not disclose the statements made before the Court during investigation to the Investigating Officer.

PW-3 Chand Rani, is the cousin of deceased Anita and according to her Anita used to confide in her. This witness used to stay at Delhi at the relevant time. She has stated that she attended the marriage of Anita. According to this witness in August, 1985 deceased Anita went to Delhi and stayed with her for some time. During her stay this witness found that deceased Anita used to remain sad and one day she was weeping. She has further stated that deceased Anita informed her that her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to maltreat her. She again met Anita in May, 1986 during the marriage of her younger brother. According to this witness Anita received a letter from her husband two days prior to the marriage of her brother which was shown to her and in that letter, according to this witness, it was written that deceased Anita had left the house of her husband without his permission which he did not like and he would kill her for this. It was also written in that letter that he could desert Anita and marry a nurse. Of course, the name of the nurse could not be given by this witness but stated that she was working at Jogon. In cross-examination she has stated that Anita read up to 5th standard and this witness was conversant with the hand-writing of deceased Anita. She has proved the letters, Mark-''A'' to Mark-''D''. It has been brought out by the defence in cross-examination that this witness did not state before the Investigating Agency that she found Anita to be in a sad mood while in Delhi and that one day she was crying and that deceased Anita told her about the demand of dowry by her in-laws. It has also been brought out that while giving statement before the Investigating Agency she did not inform the police that deceased Anita showed her the letter.

PW-4 Gurdev Singh is a seizure witness and he has proved the recovery memo Ex. PB. He is the nephew of PW-1. PW-5 Bir Singh has stated that on the date of occurrence his vehicle was wanted to take deceased Anita but it was not available. He has proved the proceedings of the Panchayat and his signatures on Ex. PW-5/A, which is a copy but the original is not available. The Panchayat expressed sympathy for the death of deceased Anita and also expressed protest against the family of accused. This witness is the Pardhan of the Gram Panchayat.

PW-6 Tara Devi is the co-villager of accused persons and she knew deceased Anita. This witness has stated that after return of Anita from her house after the marriage of her brother she told this witness that she was being harassed by all the accused persons for having attended the marriage of her brother. She has further stated that from her parents house she brought some clothes (gifts) but these were not liked by the family members of her husband. In cross-examination she has stated that Anita told her that she was taunted by word of mouth and the accused were not dealing properly. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that PW-1 is her uncle and her house is about 200 yards from the house of accused persons. It has also come out in cross-examination that accused Dilbag Singh is from the brotherhood of her husband. She has denied the suggestion that there were strained relations between her family and the family of the accused persons.

PW-7 is Dr. Gurcharan Singh. He has stated that on 9.6.1986 he conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Anita. He was assisted by Dr. C.L. Sharma. He has given his opinion and according to him the death of the deceased was due to respiratory and cardiac failure as a result of phosphine gas released from aluminium phosphide, which was sufficient to cause death in a natural course of event. The post-mortem examination report is Ex.PD. The opinion about the cause of death was given after receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner Ex. PC. He has made a categorical statement that aluminium phosphide is a poison and is generally used for preserving wheat and is in the form of tablets available in the market. According to him, if aluminium phosphide tablet is mixed with liquid, phosphine gas is released and thereafter it will no longer remain a poison, but on consumption of aluminium phosphide its action immediately starts after coming into contact with the natural liquids of the body and there is no antidote. In cross-examination he has made a categorical statement that normally aluminium phosphide can be taken by a person trying to commit suicide and it is not possible to administer it without the knowledge of the person.

PW-8 is Smt. Asha Devi and her husband is the maternal uncle of accused Dilbag Singh. She resides in the same house of the family of the accused. According to her on the date of occurrence at about 4 p.m. she found accused Sudershana and Vaishno Devi and deceased Anita were enjoying a picture on the television, which was given in dowry by the parents of deceased Anita. After the end of the movie she went to her house so also the other persons and thereafter deceased Anita cleaned her utensils and enquired from her if she was free. She has stated that at the relevant time accused Vaishno Devi and Sudershana had gone towards the back side the house and after some time deceased Anita also went towards that place. After about 15 minutes younger sister of Sudershana, Nitoo came and called Satya and Gagan and took them towards the back side of the house. After about 30 minutes Satya came carrying Anita in her arms and put her on a cot. She was followed by accused Sudershana and Vaishno Devi and also by Gagan. She tried to speak deceased Anita but Anita could not speak. This happened at about 8.30 p.m. She has further stated that accused Vaishno Devi had a talk with Gagan and then had gone out with Balbir Singh and came after about half an hour. Anita was put on a bicycle but her legs, arms and neck were in active and thereafter Satya put her on her shoulder and carried her out to somewhere. In cross-examination it has been brought out that she did not inform the police about the attempt to put Anita on bicycle and it has also been brought out that she had never seen any dispute on account of dowry between Anita and accused persons. She has denied the knowledge that PW-1, father of deceased Anita, used to visit the house of deceased in drunken condition and used to abuse them.

According to PW-8 Tarsem Devi deceased Anita went to her house on a Wednesday with her elder sister-in-law. Her sister-in-law was out side but Anita went to the kitchen when this witness was preparing tea. According to this witness Anita told her that her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were harassing her and that her husband threatened her that he would kill her as she had gone to attend the marriage of her brother without his permission. In cross-examination, it has been brought out that her statement regarding the allegation of harassment to Anita was not stated before the Investigating Officer. It has also been brought out that PW-1 is from her brotherhood and Tara Devi (PW-6) is her real sister. In her cross-examination it has been brought out that before the Investigating Officer she did not state that her husband threatened to kill her for going to attend the marriage of her brother but she only told the police about the threat to kill.

Other witnesses are official witnesses.

PW-16 Shri Het Ram was the Station House Officer at the relevant time and he took part in investigation. He has stated that on 8.6.1986 he received a telephone call from a Doctor from Hospital informing him that a patient had been admitted and it appeared to be a case of poisoning. He immediately went to the Hospital and came to know that the patient died. Post-mortem examination was conducted at his request. Inquest Report (Ex.P W1/B) was proved and also the information (Ex.PA) given by PW-1 and the site plan (Ex.PW-16/B). In cross-examination he stated that he could not tell if the accused persons and Satya were present in the Hospital at the relevant time. He has further stated that on 11th June PW-1 Hardiyal Singh had expressed his suspicion of some foul play for the first time. According to him, PW-1 Hardiyal Singh told him that his daughter deceased Anita had informed him that her in-laws were harassing her but did not disclose about the demand of dowry of Rs. 20,000/-.

PW-17 is a Handwriting Expert. It may be stated that the prosecution did not examine Gagan Singh, Bimla Devi, Rattani Devi and Surindera Devi on the ground that they were unnecessary witnesses. Balbir Singh was not examined on the ground that he was won over by the accused.

The evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the accused persons shall be discussed at the relevant time.

From the evidence of Doctor Gurcharan Singh (PW-7), there cannot be two opinions that deceased Anita committed suicide by taking aluminium phosphide, therefore, main question to be considered is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

To bring home the charge u/s 498A, the prosecution has to prove that deceased Anita was subjected to cruelty by all the accused persons. The ''cruelty'' means - (i) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb etc., of the woman; or (ii) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. In the case in hand, first clause of the explanation the word ''cruelty'' is to be considered and in other words, whether the conduct of the accused persons was wilful and is of such a nature which drove Anita to commit suicide.

To bring home the charge u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has also to prove that all the accused persons abetted the commission of suicide by deceased Anita.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has firstly urged that there is absolutely no evidence to show harassment by all the accused persons. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh v. The State of Punjab, I-1987(I) Crimes-76, wherein it has been held that it is not all and every type of cruelty by the husband or his relative which is sought to be covered by Section 498A and the scope of this section is limited to a particular type of cruelty referred to in the two sub-clauses of the Explanation. It has also been urged that the presumption as laid down in Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not applicable in the case in hand and in support learned Counsel has placed reliance on the above decision. It was held that there is no absolute presumption contemplated by above Section 113A and that once it is established that husband or his relative had subjected the deceased-wife (in case of suicide) to cruelty, a presumption should be drawn that the suicide had been abetted by her husband or his relative.

The attention of this Court has also been drawn to another decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Ashok Kumar v. The State of Punjab 1988 (I) C.L.R. 427. In that case, the High Court found that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and therefore, presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act could not be drawn. It was also noted that no allegation of cruelty was made out in the F.I.R. or statement u/s 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also noted subsequent improvements made by the witnesses for the prosecution and under the above circumstances, the conviction was set-aside. It was also held that before drawing presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act, it must be proved that the suicide was committed by a married woman within seven years of her marriage on account of her having been subjected to cruelty by her husband or any relative and that such presumption cannot be drawn unless it is proved that husband or any other relative had subjected the wife to cruelty due to which she committed suicide.

The next decision, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, is the decision of this Court in Om Parkash v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1990 (1) C.L.R. 471. In that case, the wife of the accused was alleged to have died as a result of consuming a poisonous substance and the allegation against the accused was that the deceased was being maltreated by her in-laws including the accused for bringing insufficient dowry. From the record, it was found that the relation of the accused and the deceased was cordial and all the witnesses for the prosecution were closely related to deceased. The mother of the deceased while giving evidence before the Court improved the story of the prosecution. There was no evidence to show that poison was procured by the accused or that he know about the deceased having taken poison and his conduct was natural and consistent with his innocence. There was no evidence to show that the accused in any manner abetted the commission of suicide by deceased and the prosecution case was shrouded with suspicion. On the above facts the conviction was set-aside.

The attention of this Court has also been drawn to a decision of the apex Court in Chanchal Kumari and Others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, . It was a case u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. While acquitting the accused, the apex Court held that there was no dependable evidence in regard to actual abetment by any of the accused.

Another case on which the reliance has been placed was decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana Vs. Suresh Kumar and Others, The Court took note of some letters and found that in those letters there was no suggestion that any harassment was meted out to the deceased lady on account of unlawful demand of dowry. The Court also considered Clause (i) of the Explanation u/s 498A and held that wilful conduct has to be of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life and from the above letters it was held that there was no sufficient evidence to show that the accused drove the deceased to commit suicide.

There is no dispute regarding the ratio laid down in the above decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellants. To bring home the charges under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove cruelty. Of course, all and every type of cruelty by the husband or his relatives is not sufficient to prove the charge u/s 498A, I.P.C. and to attract the provisions of this Act either Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of Section 498A has to be attracted. As stated above, in the case in hand, Clause (i) is relevant, that is, the cruelty of the Appellants should be of such a nature that this Court could reasonably come to the conclusion that deceased Anita committed suicide as a result of cruelty by the Appellants. Presumption u/s 113A of the Evidence Act will arise provided it is established by the prosecution that the Appellants had subjected deceased Anita to cruelty and thereby abetted suicide committed by her.

In the Indian society if the lady is subjected to cruelty, it is not acceptable that she will tell each and every person about this fact. She will only confine this fact to her relations and also persons who are close or dear to her. While appreciating the evidence on record, this fact has been borne in mind.

It is true that in the case in hand, from the Ziminies, it appears that the Investigating Officer did not record the most material part of the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also true that this benefit should go to the accused-Appellants but the conduct of the Investigating Agency is most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as no action was taken by the police till one year of committing suicide by deceased Anita and ultimately ato the intervention of higher ups the Investigating Agency moved into action. This fact has been duly noted by the learned trial Court.

It is true that there is some exaggeration in the evidence of the parents of deceased Anita, namely, PWs 1 and 2, but the basic fact that Anita told them that they have to pay Rs. 20,000/- as dowry, as demanded by her husband, cannot be disbelieved. The statements of these two witnesses inspire confidence. In addition to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, PW-3 has also been examined by the prosecution, who has supported the case of the prosecution. This witness has frankly stated that she did not tell the police about deceased Anita being remained sad while she was staying at Delhi with her and used to cry. PW-6 Tara Devi has deposed that deceased Anita told her that she was harassed by all the accused-Appellants for going to attend the marriage of her brother. It is not brought out in prosecution case that this was not stated before the police during the investigation. Of course, she has admitted in cross-examination that Anita did not complain to her about beatings by anyone. This witness is niece of PW-1, but on this ground her evidence cannot be discarded as nothing has been brought out to show that she was an interesting (sic.interested) witness. The cruelty can be by using bad languages and it need not necessary to mean that there must be beatings. I see no reason to dis-believe this witness.

The most important witness in the present case is Asha Devi (PW-8). Her husband is the maternal uncle of accused Dilbag Singh and they live in the same house with the family of the accused-Appellants sharing common courtyard. From her evidence, it is clear that deceased Anita with her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were enjoying a picture on the television. Thereafter, they went to the respective houses. From her evidence, it has come out that after food and cleaning utensils Anita had asked her if she was free. This witness has stated that accused Vaishno Devi and Sudershana Devi called Satya and Gagan and took them towards the back side of the house and after about 30 minutes Satya came carrying Anita in her arms and put her on a cot. Accused Sudershana Devi and accused Vaishno Devi alongwith Gagan also came from the back side at that time. When this witness wanted to speak (to) deceased Anita, Anita was not able to speak. The above statement of this witness has not been contradicted with her earlier statement u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in cross-examination. In cross-examination, it has only been brought out that this witness did not see any dispute on account of dowry between deceased Anita and accused persons. From this witness, it has clearly come out that deceased Anita was hale and hearty before she went towards the back side of the house where accused Vaishno Devi and accused Sudershana Devi were present and when she was brought back from the back side of the house she was critically ill and was not in a position to speak. From the evidence of this witness, I have no hesitation to hold poison was taken by the deceased when the above two accused persons were present. As Anita was not in a position to speak naturally presumption is that the above two accused persons did something otherwise there was no occasion for taking poison by deceased Anita. If they would not have abetted in taking poison they would definitely resisted deceased Anita for doing so. In addition to above witnesses, prosecution has also examined PW-9 Tarsem Devi.

Thus from the evidence on record, I am entirely agree with the learned trial Court that all the accused-Appellant were guilty of the charges.

It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the incident, as stated by PWs 1 and 2 that accused Dilbag Singh alongwith his friend Balbir Singh went to the house of PWs 1 and 2 and threatened that he would kill Anita for the reasons stated by the witnesses cannot be disbelieved as Balbir Singh was not examined by the prosecution. Balbir Singh was given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused alongwith other witnesses, namely, Gagan Singh, Bimla Devi, Rattani Devi and Surindera Devi. Therefore, non-examination of the above witness Balbir Singh has been explained by the prosecution.

On behalf of the defence, DW-1, Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Nalagarh, has been examined to show that there was a joint savings bank account with the bank in the name of accused Dilbag Singh and his wife deceased Anita and a sum of Rs. 1300/- was withdrawn by Anita. On the basis of the statement of this witness alongwith letters written by Anita to her husband accused Dilbag Singh, learned Counsel for the accused-Appellants has tried to impress upon this Court that there were cordial relations with them. In my opinion, this is not sufficient in view of the oral evidence already discussed.

As stated above, the defence plea was that PW-1 father of deceased Anita used to visit the house of accused persons in drunken condition when no male member was present and used to sleep at their house and used to wet the bed in the night. According to defence, Anita committed suicide because of the above conduct of her father. I am unable to accept the contention inasmuch as if that would have been the case, deceased Anita could have asked her father not to visit her house or she would have reported to her mother (PW-2) not to allow her father to go to her house. This part of the story of the defence does not have a ring of truth. The prosecution has also placed reliance on the conduct of the accused persons, inasmuch as, according to the prosecution during the marriage of the brother of deceased Anita none from the house of the accused persons attended the marriage. The defence case is that according to the custom, ladies would not go out alone unless there is a male member and as no male member was present, nobody could attend the marriage. Even if, I accept the defence version on this point, it will not help the case of the defence in view of the other evidence on record, which I have already discussed.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has very forcefully urged that in the case in hand, in the First Information Report, the prosecution version of the case, more particularly, regarding cruelty and dowry, was not disclosed properly. In support thereof, learned Counsel has placed reliance on various decisions, namely Chandrakant Luxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, , Barkau alias Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P., and State of U.P. v. Ranj Ram 1986 S.C.C. 374. The evidentiary value of the First Information Report and disclosing the story by the prosecution at the first point of time cannot be disputed, but in the case in hand one has to remember under what circumstances the First Information Report was lodged. Therefore, mere omission in the First Information Report cannot (be) fatal (to) the prosecution case.

Another point that has been urged on behalf of the accused-Appellants is that all the witnesses are related witnesses and therefore, their evidence has to be subjected to greatest scrutiny. In support, learned Counsel for the Appellants has placed reliance on Shaikh Nabab Shaikh Babu Musalman and Ors. v. Shate of Maharashtra 1993 S.C.C. 517, wherein it has been held that in case of evidence of an interested and partisn witness, such evidence has to be subjected to greatest scrutiny as there is likelihood of false implication and such evidence needs corroboration. In the case in hand, even if the witnesses are related, nothing specific has been brought out to hold that they are interested witnesses and that they have falsely implicated the accused-Appellants.

For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.