State of Himachal Pradesh vs Hoshiar Singh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.

1 This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 12th January, 1999, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(I) Kangra at Dharmshala, in Session case No. 20-P/98, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offence punishable u/s 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The undisputed facts are that the deceased Kushla Devi was married to accused Hoshiar Singh. The other accused Bhagirath and Piyungla are the parents of Hoshiar Singh. This marriage took place sometime in the year 1993. The prosecution case is that for one year the accused kept the deceased very well but after one year they started ill-treating her and started beating her for having brought less dowry. This forced the deceased to commit suicide by consuming poison. Since the deceased died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage and according to the prosecution this was due to the demand of dowry, Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act were brought into force.

The fact that the deceased committed suicide by consumption of aluminum phosphide is not denied even by the accused. The only issue which requires to be decided in this case is whether the deceased was forced to commit suicide on account of ill-treatment meted out to her for bringing inadequate dowry. The witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of its case are PW-2 Reshan Devi, mother of the deceased, PW-3 Babbli Devi sister of the deceased, PW-4 Suman Devi sister-in-law (Bhabi) of the deceased and PW-5 Vinod Kumar brother of the deceased. All these witnesses have stated that after the marriage, for one year the deceased Kushla Devi was kept well by her in-laws and thereafter the accused started ill-treating her for bringing insufficient dowry. According to PW-2 her daughter Kushla Devi had complained to her twice that she was being beaten up for bringing less dowry. She also stated that one day prior to the death of Kushla Devi i.e. on 3.11.1997, the deceased had come to her matrimonial home in connection with some marriage in the village. During the night she stayed with her mother and on the next day she alongwith her husband Hoshiar Singh accused went to her matrimonial home. From the evidence of the mother, it is apparent that she belongs to an extremely poor family which is stricken by poverty. She has admitted that at the time of marriage no dowry was demanded by the accused, though according to her she did give some dowry in accordance with her means.

PW-3 Babbli Devi, sister of the deceased gives a similar version. She stated that though her sister had complained about the maltreatment, but in order to save their family''s dignity they did not make a complaint in this regard to anybody. She also stated that one day prior to the incident, the deceased had come to her parental home in connection with some marriage. It has also come in evidence that her mother is very poor and the accused persons are fairly well off.

Sumnan Devi, PW-4 is the Bhabi of the deceased. Her version is identical to that of the other two witnesses discussed hereinabove. In her cross-examination she admitted that at the time of marriage the accused had clearly stated that they were not in need of money and did not want any dowry.

PW-5 Vinod Kumar brother of the deceased gives a similar statement and has also admitted that at the time of marriage the accused persons had clearly understood that he and his mother could not give any dowry.

In every case where a woman commits suicide, it cannot be presumed that she has died only because of ill-treatment given by the in-laws. To convict any accused u/s 304-B IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that there was demand of dowry which led the deceased to commit suicide. In the present case this has not been proved at all. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution stated that the accused demanded any dowry from them. Dowry is demanded not from the bride but from her parents and her family members. True it is, that according to these witnesses, the deceased had told them that she was being ill-treated because of having brought insufficient dowry. However, none of the witnesses stated as to what was the specific demand raised by the accused. This point has to be considered in view of the fact that the deceased died four years after her marriage. As per the prosecution for one year she was kept well, meaning thereby that for three years she was ill-treated. If the deceased had been complaining for three years then these witnesses would in normal course have made some complaint in this behalf. Such complaint may not necessarily be made to the police at the first instance but such complaint could have been made to the persons who arranged the marriage; to the members of the ''Biradari'', to the members of the Panchayat and if things do not get solved to the police also. In the present case, the mother PW-2 had admitted that the marriage was arranged by her sister, who is married and resides in the village of the accused. A complaint would have been made even at least to her. This sister i.e. Aunt (Massi) of the deceased has not been examined in Court. If the deceased was maltreated by her in-laws she would normally have first of all complained to her Massi who was residing in the same village. The defence has also led evidence to show that no such demand was made. There is no positive evidence that the deceased was beaten by the accused.

In view of the evidence led on record and discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was being ill-treated, that too, in connection with bringing insufficient dowry. We find no error in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.