State of Himachal Pradesh vs Parshotam Lal

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 20th September, 2004, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Trial No. 29/04, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The undisputed facts are that about ten years prior to the occurrence taking place, the deceased, Radha Devi @ Gudu had got married to accused Parshotam Lal. Two boys, Gaurav aged 8 years and Rohit aged 6th years were born out of this wedlock. It is also not disputed that on 6th August, 2001, the deceased Radha Devi died due to consumption of poison.

The prosecution story, which is primarily based on the complaint on PW-1, Parkash Chand, father of the deceased, is that right from the beginning, after the marriage took place, the accused had been harassing and ill-treating the deceased. It is also alleged that the accused had asked the deceased to get money from her parents for construction of a house. According to the complainant, after he retired from GREF, he gave a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to his daughter, Radha Devi, for the construction of a house. But, despite this fact, the accused continued to harass and ill-treat his daughter. On 4th August, 2001, on Raksha Bandhan day, the deceased came to her parental house and again complained that her husband was demanding more money and treating her with cruelty. The complainant pacified his daughter and assured that he would give her money later on. The deceased returned to her matrimonial house the next day, i.e. 5th August, 2001. On 6th August, 2001, the complainant was informed by Sawarn Singh, brother of the accused, that Radha Devi had expired. According to the complainant, Radha Devi had consumed poison due to the cruelty meted out to her by the accused. He thereafter lodged the complaint with the police, the same evening and on the basis of the complaint, FIR, Ext. PW1/A was lodged in Police Station Indora at 11.40 p.m. on 6th August, 2001.

It is not disputed that the deceased Radha Devi was taken to CHC Indora on 6th August, 2001, where PW15, Dr. Swati Aggarwal, attended upon her. However, she found that Radha Devi was dead. It is also apparent that the body was permitted to be taken home on the said date itself.

After the complaint was lodged, post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted. According to the Chemical Examiner Report, Ext. PA, phosphide poison was found in the intestines, stomach and other parts of the body of the deceased and on the basis of the report, it was opined that the deceased died due to consumption of phosphide poison. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the deceased committed suicide.

The main issue is whether the deceased was treated with cruelty of the type, envisaged in Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, neither the father nor the brother or any other family member of the deceased had made any complaint to the police or Panchayat or other members of the Biradari about the alleged ill-treatment of the deceased at the instance of the accused or his family members.

This is not a case where the death has taken place soon after the marriage. Admittedly, the death had taken place after a period of about ten years of marriage. If the daughter of the complainant was being ill-treated by the accused, he would have raised this issue with somebody at least. We are aware that in India, normally, the people hesitate to go to the police to lodge complaints against in-laws of the daughter, but even then, such matters are brought to the notice of local Panchayats or members of the Biradari or at least to the person, who has arranged the wedding between the parties. The family for ten years, a long time, would not have kept this matter a secret, if it had actually happened.

Moreover, the examination of the prosecution witnesses, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, i.e. father, mother and sister of the deceased shows that the relations between the deceased and her husband were normal. They may have been fighting like any married couple, but there is no evidence on record to show that they were not on talking terms with each other or that the treatment of the deceased was such, that she was being treated with cruelty. In this regard, the family members had admitted that during the last ten years, the accused along with deceased had been visiting the house of the complainant regularly. The accused had also visited the house of the complainant along with deceased when the complainant had a feast to celebrate his retirement. The accused attended all other functions, including the marriage of other daughter of the complainant. It may be true that the complainant may have given Rs. 40,000/- to his daughter for raising construction of a house, but this cannot be termed to be a demand for dowry. He also states that he had given the money to his daughter and not to his son-in-law.

There are also material contradictions in the statements of father and mother of the deceased. According to the father, the main bone of contention was demand of money and maltreatment of the deceased after the accused used to take liquor, whereas the mother had come up with a totally new story. According to PW2, Lajwanti, mother of the deceased, the accused had seen the deceased along with her son at ''Naag'' fair in the month of ''Sawan'' roaming with her brothers-in-law and had got annoyed that why the deceased was roaming with her brothers-in-law. This version does not find mention in the complaint and for the first time, it was narrated in the Court.

Another contradiction is that the mother states that the deceased had shown her wounds, which had been inflicted upon the deceased by the accused, but admits that neither the daughter was got medically examined nor the matter was reported to the police. This is also a material improvement, as she had not stated this fact to the police while getting recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.. The conduct of the accused also does not support the version of the prosecution, which stands proved on record. It was the accused, who had immediately taken his wife to the hospital and after the body was returned to the husband, he did not try to cremate the body the same night, which he could have tried to do if he would have been remotely guilty. The post-mortem was conducted on the next day. Admittedly, the accused and his family members did not try to interfere in any process. The cremation was carried out by the accused and his family members despite the fact that the complaint had been lodged by the father of the deceased. On perusal of the evidence and attending circumstances, we are of the considered view that the learned trial court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds are discharged.