AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 31.12.2002 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.
The undisputed facts are that Santosh Kumari (deceased) was married to Lekh Raj, respondent No.1. Julfi Ram and Vidya Devi, respondent No.2 and 3, respectively, were the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Reena Devi, respondent No.4, was the sister of Lekh Raj i.e. the sister-in-law of the deceased. It is not disputed that Santosh Kumari committed suicide by consuming poison on 2nd August, 2001 in her matrimonial house at village Ghumarun. PW-1 Shri Beli Ram, father of the deceased, informed the police telephonically that he had received information from his son-in-law that Santosh Kumari had consumed poison and had expired. On the basis of this telephonic information daily diary report No.12 Ext.PW-16/A was recorded.
PW-16 Inspector Hukum Chand, SHO of the Police Station, accompanied by other police officials, went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of PW-1 Beli Ram and other witnesses. The allegation of PW-1 Beli Ram and other family members was that the deceased was being ill-treated by her husband, her parents-in-law and her sister-in-law (accused) and that they used to beat her frequently and were not even providing food and clothing to her and as such she was driven to commit suicide and since her husband and in-laws had acted in a cruel manner, they were guilty of the offence of having abetted her suicide. After completing investigation, the accused were charged for having committed the offences as detailed above. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused, hence this appeal by the State.
We have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the State and Ms. Divya Sood, learned counsel for the accused.
There are some facts which are not disputed and these are that the deceased committed suicide more than 7 years after her marriage with Lekh Raj. The second is that within one or two years of the marriage, differences arose between the deceased and her husband Lekh Raj and after she had given birth to a son, she remained in the house of her parents for about three years. During this period, the deceased filed a petition for grant of maintenance and her husband Lekh Raj filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It appears that during the course of the legal proceedings, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and thereafter, as a result of the compromise, the deceased Santosh Kumari went back to her matrimonial home and started living with her husband and his family members.
Thus, it is apparent that while deciding the question as to whether the deceased was treated with cruelty to such an extent that it amounted to abetment of suicide and amounted to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, only the events after the compromise will have to be looked into. It is settled law that while deciding the question as to whether the acts of cruelty are sufficient provocation to compel the deceased to commit suicide, it is the recent events, which have occurred immediately before the suicide, which have to be looked into.
Coming to the evidence in the case, PW-1 Beli Ram states that after the compromise took place, his daughter started living with her in-laws. She came to her parental home on the occasion of Chirnu festival. Then, the deceased told her father, sister and sister-in-law that she had been ill-treated by the accused persons and they were not providing her sufficient food. She had come to her parental house alongwith her husband. She remained for two days in the house. The father PW-1 Beli Ram further states that he got clothes stitched for his daughter and also gave her Rs. 1,000/-. The deceased was reluctant to go to the house of her in-laws, but her father pacified her and told her that he would visit her house after 15 days and would talk to her in-laws.
After 15 days, he went to the house of the accused and found that his daughter was not at home. She came home after about 3/4 hours. She then informed her father that all the accused persons had given her beatings and she had gone to call the Pradhan but the Pradhan was not available at his house. According to the father PW-1, the accused in his presence again beat the deceased. In the evening, a Ward Panch visited the house of the accused and settled the matter between the parties. Next morning, PW-1 Beli Ram went to the house of PW-5 Dhian Singh, to whose son his other daughter was married, and there he received telephonic information at about 1.30-2.00 p.m. from accused Lekh Raj that the deceased had committed suicide by consuming poison. He thereafter came back and informed the police and his statement Ext.PW-1/A was recorded.
Neither in the statement in Court nor in the statement Ext.PW-1/A there is any allegation that any of the accused had demanded any money through the deceased or had rebuked her for bringing less dowry. This fact had been admitted by the father while appearing as PW-1. Though in Court, the witness had stated that he had given Rs. Rs. 1000/-, but this fact has not been recorded in the statement Ext.PW-1/A. Similarly, his statement that he had told his daughter that he would visit her house after 15 days does not find mention in his statement Ext.PW-1/A. He admits that he, after the compromise, had never reported the fact of maltreatment of his daughter to the Panchayat. He admitted that when his son had got married about one year prior to the suicide, the deceased alongwith her husband Lekh Raj had attended the marriage and all functions connected therewith. The deceased and her husband had also visited the house of her father on the occasion of Lohdi festival.
A suggestion has been put to this witness that on 1st August, 2001, when he went to the house of the accused, the accused persons complained to him that his daughter Santosh had beaten the accused Reena Kumari, sister of Lekh Raj. Another suggestion put to the witness was that the deceased abused the accused in his presence and in the presence of Ward Panch Mehar Singh. In the examination-in-chief, this witness had stated that a Ward Panch had been called by accused Julfi Ram, but he had not named the Ward Panch. The suggestion put to him was that the Ward Panch was Mehar Singh but he denied this fact and went on to state that his daughter had informed him that it was Mehar Singh, who was the cause of all troubles and it was he, who had instigated the accused against his daughter. However, these facts were not stated in the initial report, the statement recorded u/s 154 Cr.P.C. or even in the examination-in-chief of this witness.
PW-2 Veena Devi is the sister-in-law of the deceased. Her version is similar to that of PW-1 Beli Ram. However, there is one material difference. Whereas, according to PW-1, none of the accused had demanded any money directly or through the deceased, this witness states that Rs. 1,000/- was given to the deceased as per the demand of the accused. This witness also admitted that after the compromise had taken place, the deceased and her husband had visited her parental home on 2-3 occasions.
PW-3 Krishni Devi is the real sister of the deceased. According to her, she had also come to the home of her parents on the occasion of Chirnu festival. She comes up with a new story. According to her, the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- to purchase a chips grinding machine. (It would be pertinent to mention that the accused Lekh Raj is a mason). However, her father gave only Rs. 1,000/- to his daughter. This version is totally different to that of the father and the sister-in-law, PWs 1 and 2. This witness in her statement made to the police had not made any such allegation.
PW-6 Raj Kumar is the brother of the deceased. He also has come up with the story of the demand of Rs. 10,000/-for the purchase of chips grinding machine. In other aspects, his statement is similar to that of his sister PW-3. He has also proved on record the copies of the orders passed on the petition filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. by the wife (PW-6/B) and on the application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (Ext.PW-6/C).
PW-4 Ramesh Chand is the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Panyali in whose jurisdiction the village of the complainant side i.e. Beli Ram falls. According to him, some time in the year 1995, Beli Ram had complained about his daughter being ill-treated by the accused. Thereafter, he alongwith Beli Ram went to the house of the accused and when she complained that she was beaten and not being given clothes, she was brought back to the parents'' house. She remained in the house of her father for about three years during which time some litigation took place between the parties. Thereafter, the matter was compromised and both the petitions were withdrawn. In cross examination, he has made a telling statement that "After the compromise till death of Santosh Kumari, I have not heard anything untoward between the accused and the deceased." He is a person who was, admittedly, a confidante of PW-1 Beli Ram, since on the earlier occasions when Santosh Kumari had complained of being ill-treated, Beli Ram had approached this witness Ramesh Chand to intervene in the matter. If the daughter, after the litigation proceedings had taken place, had again complained to her father, then he would have naturally approached this person again since he continued to be the Pradhan. No such report was ever made to Ramesh Chand or any other Pradhan or public authority.
PW-5 Dhian Singh is the father-in-law of another daughter of PW-1 Beli Ram. He works as a Carpenter and had gone out for work on 2.8.2001. He received a message that PW-1 Beli Ram had come to his house. Therefore, he returned home and Beli Ram informed him that he received a message on telephone that his daughter Santosh Kumari had died after consuming poison and asked him to accompany him to the house of the accused. His statement in this behalf is totally contradictory to the statement of PW-1 Beli Ram, who stated that he had gone to the house of Dhian Singh early in the morning and when he was in the house of Dhian Singh, he received a message that his daughter had committed suicide.
From the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that it is only the close family members of the deceased who have alleged that after the compromise, the accused were treating the deceased with cruelty. There is no independent witness to support this allegation. The statement of the Pradhan has already been discussed above and even the other relative Dhian Singh has not stated a word that he was ever told that the deceased was being treated with cruelty by the accused.
PW-7 Hans Raj was a prosecution witness belonging to the village of the accused. He has turned completely hostile and according to him, he and other persons including Mehar Singh, Ward Panch, saw the deceased Santosh Kumari abusing the accused persons in the presence of her father. Though this witness was declared hostile, nothing material has been extracted in his cross examination.
The accused have examined two defence witnesses. These are DW-1 Mehar Singh, Ward Panch and DW-2 Om Parkash. The statement of DW-2 Om Parkash is not very relevant, but DW-1, in his statement, states that he was present in the house of the accused persons in the evening on 1st August, 2001 and he was informed by the accused Vidya Devi that the deceased had beaten the accused Reena Kumari. When he alongwith other persons including PW-7 Hans Raj went to the house of the accused persons, in their presence also, the deceased abused the accused persons and also her father.
Keeping in view the evidence discussed above, especially, taking into consideration the contradictions in the statements of close family members, it would not be safe to rely upon these statements. The independent witnesses i.e. the Pradhan, the Ward Member and PW-7 Hans Raj have not supported the prosecution case and according to them, it was the deceased who had abused the accused persons. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused persons. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the accused shall stand discharged.