State of Himachal Pradesh vs Inderjit

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 30.4.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him u/s 306 and 498A I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 27.6.2001, a rapat was lodged by the police of Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, on the basis of telephonic information that one lady Pooja Devi has died due to burning. On the receipt of this information, Police Officer went to the spot and found that dead body of Pooja Devi wife of Inderjit (respondent) was lying on a cot in a burnt condition. On investigation it was found that the marriage of Pooja Devi was performed with the respondent two years ago. The deceased was in love with the respondent and they wanted to marry. The family of the deceased was opposing this marriage, but when it was learnt from PW-2 Damyanti Devi, mother of the deceased, that the deceased was pregnant for the last four months, they gave consent for the marriage. The respondent was working in STD Booth and the deceased''s mother called the father of the respondent for the marriage, who told them that they will have to spend a sum of Rs. 22,000/-as expenses of the marriage to be incurred at Delhi. It was alleged that they paid the money and marriage took place at Delhi and the deceased lived with the respondent at Delhi for about one month and then came to village Dhabiri. In January, 2000, the deceased gave birth to a male child and they visited the village and stayed there. During her last visit, the deceased informed his mother and brother that the respondent and his parents used to maltreat her and do not provide sufficient food. Thereafter also, after 7 months, the deceased informed PW-1 Ansuya Parshad on phone about the beatings and no food being given to her. The father of the deceased went to the village and pacified the deceased, who told him not to say anything to her in-laws about the maltreatment. The deceased and her husband stayed in private accommodation and the parents of the deceased helped her and then the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. One Lac for purchase of plot. It was further alleged that the deceased and her husband did not visit the village on the marriage of her younger sister, which was performed in February, 2001. There used to be continuous quarrel of the deceased and accused. The respondent visited their house alongwith landlady requested to be pardoned and the deceased was brought to his native village. After 15 days they learnt that the deceased was serious and learnt about her death subsequently. Statement of the brother of the deceased was recorded as Ext. PW1/A.

The case was investigated by the police and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, District Hamirpur, who committed the case to the learned trial court, who tried the respondent as detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

On appraisal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses. The statements of the relatives of the deceased can be said to be material, who have been examined as PW-1 Ansuya Parshad, brother of the deceased and PW-2 Damyanti Devi, mother of the deceased.

PW-1 Ansuya Parshad has reiterated the allegations made in his statement to the police. The first thing that has come up in evidence is that they were made to give Rs.22,000/-as expenses of the marriage. Then he was informed that the respondent and his parents used to maltreat her and did not provide sufficient food. Thereafter, this information was also given once on telephone. Once the deceased asked them to talk to the respondent, who was demanding Rs. One Lacs for purchase of a plot at Delhi. Then the allegations are in regard to the visit of the accused to their village alongwith a landlady and to be pardoned. This is in all the allegations made against the respondent and since the police had not found any case against the parents of the respondents, they were not impleaded as accused. It is clear from cross-examination of this witness that he was confronted in regard to the payment of Rs.22,000/-for marriage expenses, but there was no mention in his statement Ext. PW1/A in this regard, with which he was confronted. He even did not inform his parents and states that he paid the amount himself. He was also confronted with the portion of his statement wherein he stated that the respondent and the deceased did not attend the marriage of his younger sister, which was not mentioned in the statement made to the police. He was also confronted with portion of his statement, in which he had alleged that the accused accompanied with his land lady came there and touched their feet and took the deceased with him, which does not find mention in his police statement. In regard to the demand of Rs. One Lac for purchase of plot, he stated that he did not tell his parents.

From his cross-examination, it is clear that the accused is Harijan and the deceased family was belonging to Brahmin caste. It has also come up that the respondent was residing at a distance of 100 yards from their house in nearby Block and after marriage, the deceased also remained in the village of the respondent namely Dhabiri for about two months. He also admitted that the deceased used to visit their village with the respondent. It was also suggested to this witness that the deceased had threatened to commit suicide when they compelled her to marry with a person residing at Mayur Bihar, which suggestion was denied by him. However, it is clear that both the parties were from different caste, the deceased was earlier living at Delhi and then was made to live in the in-laws house in District Hamirpur and the deceased may not be happy while living in the village. It was denied that the deceased was not wiling to live in the village, for this reason she committed suicide. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, this possibility cannot be ruled out.

It is clear from a perusal of statement of this witness that nothing has come up in regard to the beatings and when it was told to him or other family members or in regard to maltreatment and in regard to demands, which has not been substantiated by any other evidence and there was improvement in the statement made by the brother of the deceased earlier to the police.

PW-2 Damyanti Devi is the mother of the deceased, who corroborated the facts that the deceased was pregnant and they were compelled to give the consent for their marriage. She stated that the deceased used to complaint that food was not proved to her per her choice. It was not so stated by her brother PW-1 Ansuya Parshad. She also stated that the accused used to maltreat her, but nothing was specified as to the manner of maltreatment. She did not state anything about any demand of dowry or specific demand of money for purchasing of plot etc. as stated by her son. Nothing could be made out from her statement in general.

PW-3 Pappi Devi had only seen the flames coming out of the kitchen of the respondent, but has not stated anything material and was declared as hostile.

Statement of PW-10 Dr. Sunita Galoda, Medical Officer, shows that she conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and the deceased had died due to burning, which fact is not disputed.

Statements of other witnesses are not material and nothing specific has come out to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the respondent by leading evidence, which could prove the guilt or the demand of dowry. The net conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case, is based upon correct appreciation of facts and law and those findings cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court.

In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged forthwith.