State of Himachal Pradesh vs Rakesh Kumar and Roshni Devi

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by State of Himachal Pradesh u/s 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., dated 4.5.2002, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.11.1998, a police officer was present in Dadoh area, where a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was made by Ranjit Singh, father of deceased Raksha Devi. In the said statement, he alleged that he had performed the marriage of his daughter Raksha Devi (now deceased) three years ago with respondent Rakesh Kumar. He was present in the school on 24.11.1998, where he was serving as a Peon, when he received a telephonic information at 10.30 a.m. that his daughter was being taken to hospital in a serious condition. He firstly went to the hospital and then to the house of the in-laws of the deceased and found her dead body lying in the verandah. It was alleged that earlier also his cousin Nikki Devi, who is also married in the same village, had informed him that the husband of the deceased, namely, Rakesh Kumar usually give beatings to his daughter. His daughter visited him on the occasion of Diwali and told him about this fact and he advised her husband and sent her back. It was alleged that respondent Roshani Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, also used to maltreat her without any reason and used to taunt her. He advised them, but they did not change. He was also informed by the villagers of Dadoh village that respondent Rakesh Kumar and his mother give beatings to his daughter and taunted her and, therefore, she may have committed the suicide.

On this report, a case was registered. Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted and on completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur. The learned Sessions Judge tried the respondents for the offence, as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.

We have heard Mr.Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State and Mr.Prantap Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents, 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 12 witnesses to substantiate their case. The statements of three of the relatives of the deceased can be said to be most material.

PW-1 is Ranjit Singh, father of the deceased, who has reiterated the allegations made in the first report lodged by him with the police. Form a perusal of the statement made by PW-1 Ranjit Singh, it is clear that the marriage was performed in the year 1994 and for two years there was no complaint and all was well in between the deceased and the accused. However, thereafter, he was told by PW-4 Nikki Devi, the cousin of PW-1, that the accused were beating the deceased. He further stated that he went to the house of the accused and advised them, but he does not remember the month or year. He talked to the father of respondent Rakesh Kumar, who told him that he would advise the accused not to give beatings to the deceased, in case they had done so. He thereafter returned to his house and PW-4 Nikki Devi continued informing him that the accused were beating the deceased. The deceased came to his house, but did not make any complaint about the beatings at the hand of the accused. On Diwali day, the deceased came with her husband, stayed in his house and they went to purchase the clothes to the respondent and the deceased. When they returned to their house, he found the deceased weeping and respondent Rakesh Kumar had already left. When he asked the deceased as to why he had left, she did not say anything and only told later on that the accused had called her having dark complexion and also having black spots on her face. She also told him that the accused had also made other derogatory remarks and went away. He further stated that the deceased also told him that her mother-in-law also tells her these things. After 10-15 days, he left the deceased in the house of her in-laws. He further stated that thereafter some other persons had also informed him about beatings being given to the deceased. In cross examination, he stated that the deceased was never turned out from their house by the accused at any time. The marriage had taken place in between the deceased and the respondent Rakesh Kumar with the consent and approval of each other. He had informed the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Raili five days ago, but before he could talk with the Pradhan of the Panchayat of the accused, the deceased had died. He was confronted with his police station wherein it was not so recorded that when he returned after purchasing clothes, he found the deceased weeping and that she told him that the accused had run away from the house after calling her having dark complexion and ugly face. He was also confronted with his police statement where he had not mentioned that he was assured by the father of respondent Rakesh Kumar that he would advise the accused not to beat the deceased or that Nikki Devi had told him that both the accused beat the deceased, which facts were not mentioned in the statement made by him to the police.

PW-2 Salochna Devi is the mother of the deceased, who stated that the accused were not tolerating the deceased and were giving beatings to her since she was having dark complexion and also having spots on her face. She also stated about the visit of her son-in-law to their house on Diwali and when she came back after purchasing clothes, she found that the accused had gone away after beating the deceased. However, the statement of her husband PW-1 Ranjit Singh was not to this effect that any beating was given, but he only stated that the accused had left the place after calling the deceased that she was having dark complexion and also having black spots. Thus, a different version had been given by the parents of the deceased in regard to this occurrence. PW-2 Salochna Devi further stated that after about 10 days, her husband left the deceased in the house of the accused. She came up with another plea that on that day, the accused had abused the deceased. In case the deceased was not comfortable in her in-laws house, it is quite natural that she would have refused to go there until and unless her father talked to the parents of the deceased and advised them to mend their ways, which is not so. PW-2 further stated that the accused had not beaten the deceased in her presence and had not taunted her in her presence about her dark complexion. She was confronted with her police statement wherein it was not mentioned that respondent Rakesh Kumar had left after beating the deceased, as stated by her in the Court.

The statements of both the parents of the deceased are not corroborative in regard to the nature of maltreatment or when the report was made to them in this regard.

PW-3 Parwati Devi from the village of the accused has simply stated that she had heard that the accused were beating the deceased and her version is only hearsay and she had not seen herself or the deceased had not complained to her at any time. She is related to PW-4 Nikki Devi as has come up in her statement.

PW-4 Nikki Devi has stated that the deceased had told her that the accused beat her on account of her having dark complexion. She did not remember month, date or year or the probable time when the complaint was made to her. She has also not stated that the deceased visited her house and made these complaints at any time. She stated that she visited the house of the accused and told them not to beat the deceased, which was never so stated by the parents of the deceased. She also stated that she had informed about this fact to the parents of the deceased through somebody, while the parents of the deceased stated in their statements that they were told by PW-4 Nikki Devi herself. She also stated that she had heard many times about the beatings, which evidence is hearsay and is not admissible in evidence.

PW-5 Suresh Kumari had only given an opinion that she used to hear the weeping of the deceased. PW-6 Dr.P.C. Verma had conducted the postmortem and after receipt of the report of the chemical examiner, he opined that the deceased died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide. PW-7 Mukhtiar Singh has stated that he was told once by Ranjit Singh, father of the deceased, that the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased maltreat her.

From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that the evidence of the parents of the deceased is not corroborative on the point that the deceased was maltreated by which of the respondents. They have also not stated in regard to the complaints made to them at any time by the deceased, except the complaints made in regard to the dark complexion or the spots on the face. But, the evidence led is sufficient to show that for two years, there was no such complaint and the marriage was performed after approval. Therefore, the possibility that this type of taunting or maltreatment started after two years appears to be remote. Until and unless the evidence was specific, it cannot be said that the charge of maltreatment or abetment to suicide is proved, which evidence is lacking. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence and after perusal of the evidence had come to the conclusion that the guilt of the respondents was not established, which findings cannot be said to be 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 stands dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.