State of Himachal Pradesh vs Madan Lal

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh u/s 378 of the Cr. P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 22.3.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 1.7.2000, a telephonic message was received at 4.25 P.M. at Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur that one woman named Veena Devi wife of Madan Lal has been brought to CHC Nadaun, for having taken poison. On this report, a Police Officer went to the hospital and there mother of the deceased, namely, Kamla Devi PW-1 made a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. She alleged that she performed the marriage of her daughter Veena Devi, now deceased, with Madan Lal respondent about three years ago. One girl was born from this wed lock, who is now at about one year. It was alleged that after the birth of the daughter, the respondent started troubling the deceased and was not paying any expenses. She advised Madan Lal respondent many times. When her daughter complained in this regard, she advised her and she was sent back to her in-laws house. It was alleged that six months ago, the respondent gave beatings to her daughter and she advised her daughter to adjust in the house of in-laws. On 1.7.2000 at 6.30 P.M., Mehar Singh, brother of the complainant, informed her on telephone that the deceased has taken some poisonous substance and is admitted in the hospital. She went to Nadaun hospital, where her daughter was found dead and she alleged that the deceased had died because of the maltreatment meted out to her.

On this report, a case was registered. Postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, 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 record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined nine witnesses to substantiate its case. The statement of two of the relatives of the deceased can be said to be most material, which needs to be appreciated.

PW-1 Kamla Devi is the mother of the deceased and reiterated the allegations made by her in the statement made to the police. From her statement, nature of maltreatment or the details of the maltreatment that have come on record are that the respondent started maltreating the deceased by giving physical torture and was not providing maintenance. She informed her when she visited her house. She pacified her and sent back to her in-laws house. She called the accused to her house, advised him to provide maintenance and the accused promised to provide maintenance to the deceased four months before her death. On one occasion, the deceased visited her house, demanded ` 400/- , which she had spent for paying for cost of the milk for the child. She also informed that the accused has not improved and was not providing maintenance and was, therefore, continuously maltreating the deceased till her death. From her cross-examination, it is clear that she was confronted with her earlier police statement, in which she had not stated that the deceased came to her house and told her about the maltreatment. She was also confronted with her statement wherein she had stated that she called the accused and she made him to understand, which was not mentioned by her in her earlier statement. She stated that the police did not enquire regarding any payment made by her to her daughter on her demand. Therefore, she did not state this fact to the police. She was confronted with her statement to the police wherein she did not alleged that the accused did not improve. From her statement, it is clear that minute details of the maltreatment or the nature of the maltreatment were not given in the first statement made to the police. It is not necessary that when she comes to enquire about the death of daughter, she must allege all the necessary details about the maltreatment and their dates etc. The purpose of recording statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. is to see that if a cognizable case is made out and the minute details of the maltreatment may not have been mentioned in the statement and, therefore, some minor improvements do not make her statement doubtful. However, from a perusal of the statement, it is clear that in Court she did not state month, year, the nature of physical torture or maltreatment and as to when the complaint was made to her by the deceased. From her statement, it could only be made out that the respondent has stopped giving maintenance to his wife after the birth of a daughter, but when it was told to her in whose presence or what was the nature of maltreatment was not specified in her statement. These are in the nature of some problems, the girl has to face in her marital home after marriage, but nothing specific has been brought on record. There is nothing in her statement that at any time she made any complaint to the police, Panchayat or in regard to the beatings, she has not stated anything.

The other witness who has been examined is PW-2 Mehar Singh, brother of PW-1 Kamla Devi, who has stated that the accused started maltreating the deceased after the birth of daughter, used to beat her and was not providing maintenance to her. In regard to the beating, the statement of PW-1 Kamla Devi was not specific. He further stated that this fact was told to him by the deceased at his house. He did not state as to when the deceased visited his house or that his house is near the house of PW-1 Kamla Devi or that he had also informed his sister about the beatings as told to him by the deceased. He stated that he stated that he visited the house of Madan Lal and told him that he should stop beating and provide her maintenance. His statement was not corroborated by PW-1 Kamla Devi or he informed his sister having gone to the house of the deceased and advised the respondent to mend his ways. He stated that Veena Devi again visited his house and told him that the respondent has not stopped the maltreatment and is not providing maintenance, for which there was nothing in the statement of PW-1 Kamla Devi that she was ever informed by her brother in this regard. The allegations made in his statement are general in nature and do not mention the specific period or nature of maltreatment and in regard to beating, he has not been corroborated by the statement of his sister. He was confronted with his police statement and it is clear that he had made some improvement since he has not stated to the police that 15 days prior to the death of deceased, she came to his house and told him that he was not providing her maintenance and was maltreating her. This fact was not mentioned in his police statement. He has stated that his statement was recorded by the police at about 5.00/5.30 P.M. and thereafter he informed his sister, who came there. This clearly shows that before the statement was made u/s 154 Cr.P.C. by PW-1 Kamla Devi, this witness had already made a statement to the police, but the said statement never saw the light of the day, it may be that it was not going to substantiate the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer has proved one statement of the witness as Ext. PW9/A. Ext. PW9/A has been proved in evidence as rapat and not any statement of this witness. However, statement made by him u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has been proved as Ext. PW9/A. PW-9 ASI Raj Kumar has formally stated that Mehar Singh had never made statement to him that the deceased came to his house to complaint regarding maltreatment after the marriage. He also stated that the deceased did not visit the house of Mehar Chand 15 days prior to her death.

The postmortem of the body of the deceased was conducted by PW-3 Dr. R.K. Kanwar, who gave the cause of death as cardio respiratory failure. However, the final opinion was to be given after receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner and then he opined that the deceased died due to aluminum phosphide poison. There is no dispute about the cause of death that it was due to taking of some poisonous substance, but there is no evidence on record in regard to maltreatment, cruelty or provocation for the deceased to commit suicide prior to the suicide committed by her. It was sought to be brought on record from the suggestion made to PW-2 Mehar Singh that the respondent was doing some job in Chandigarh before and after marriage and the deceased had requested him to ask the respondent to live separately or take her to Chandigarh and since she was not taken, she took this step. This may be one of the cause of the marital discord. But from the evidence led, it is not conclusively established that the respondent was responsible for causing cruelty to her or had abetted the deceased''s act to commit suicide, for which there is no specific evidence.

In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the net conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondent cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. We, therefore, 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.