State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ram Chand, Parkash Chand, Satya Devi and Dromata 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., dated 30.7.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 306 & 498-A read with Section 34 IPC.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.8.1999, a report was lodged with the police by complainant PW-1 Parkash Chand that his younger sister Sudesh Kumari, aged about 24 years, was married with Ram Chand, respondent, on 9.3.1996. Two sons were born from this wedlock. After one year, his sister started complaining to him that her in-laws harass her and her husband Ram Chand also gives her beatings. In the month of July, 1999, on 27th/28th, his sister came to their house and told that she has been turned out by her husband after giving beatings and had kept the children with him. She apprehended a threat to her life from her in-laws. She also told him that her husband was not doing any work, troubles her by depriving her of the basic necessities and also suspects about her character. Her mother-in-law Satya Devi, respondent, also claims that she had illicit relations with her father-in-law and that they had not given sufficient articles in dowry. His sister remained in their house for about 12/13 days and then her husband Ram Chand came and stated that he would not take her and if she is interested, she should come herself. On the next day, Sudesh Kumari was sent alongwith the son of the complainant PW-4 Gurdial Singh. Yesterday, at about 9.00 a.m., respondent Ram Chand came to their house and told them that Sudesh Kumari was missing since morning and they searched for her and her dead body was found at Gorakhpur.

On this report, the case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amb, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge assigned the matter to the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents leading to their acquittal.

We have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents, and have gone through the record of the case.

Admittedly, respondent No. 1 is the husband, respondent No. 2 is the father-in-law, respondent No. 3 is the mother-in-law and respondent No. 4 is the Jethani of the deceased. There is also no dispute that the marriage took place in the year 1996 and two children were born. It has to be considered as to whether the statement of the complainant proves the guilt of the respondents coupled with the testimony of other witnesses examined by the prosecution. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses in all. The cause of death, as has come up on record, is by drowning in a well.

Coming to the testimony of the complainant PW-1 Parkash Chand, he reiterated that Sudesh Kumari was married, two children were born and also stated about the occurrence on 27th/28th July when she came to their house and told that her husband had beaten her up and had turned her out and kept the children with him. After staying for 5-6 days, she was sent back with his son Gurdial Singh, though respondent Ram Chand had come but had refused to take her proclaiming that let her come herself. She came back to their house to mourn the death of his uncle and told that she was being maltreated and beaten up constantly by the accused persons. She went back on 16th August, 1999 and was murdered, as per him, on 18.8.1999. In cross examination, he stated that in the month of July, 1999, respondent Ram Chand had come from Delhi due to death of his uncle. He was confronted with a portion of his statement in which he stated that he was told by his sister that the accused was saying that she had no place in his house, but it was not so recorded in his police statement. He further stated that the accused stayed in their house for 5-6 days and they asked him as to why he had beaten his sister and turned her out and that they also pacified respondent Ram Chand and he went away. He was confronted with his police statement where all this was not mentioned. He stated that he sent his sister back to her in-laws house and told her that they would come after the completion of rites of his uncle, but this was not so mentioned in the police statement. Nothing could come up in the statement of this witness, who is the brother of the deceased, in regard to maltreatment due to bringing of insufficient dowry or beatings given to the deceased at any time. He does not mention any such occurrence having taking place or any report lodged with the police, Panchayat or any medical got done in that regard.

PW-2 Kamla Devi is the mother of the deceased, who has stated that two months prior to the death of Sudesh Kumari, she had told them that she was being maltreated and beaten up by her father-in-law, mother-in-law, Jethani and her husband. This was never so stated by the complainant PW-1 Parkash Chand, brother of the deceased. She also stated that the mother-in-law of the deceased also used to allege that the deceased had illicit relations with her father-in-law, which was not so stated by PW-1, though he had alleged in his report in this regard. She also stated for the first time that they used to torture the deceased for not having brought dowry, but this was not so stated by the complainant Parkash Chand. She stated that about 20 days prior to the death of Sudesh Kumari, she and her husband quarreled with each other and the deceased was being given beatings by her husband, which was not so stated by the complainant in very clear words. She also stated that the deceased was sent back to her in-laws house with her grand son Gurdial, because the ladies of the village wanted that the deceased should come from her in-laws house to mourn the death. Thereafter, the deceased came to their house and returned on the same day. Nothing could come up in her statement to prove maltreatment, beatings or demand for dowry. PW-2 Kamla Devi admitted that no dowry articles were given to the accused, when they were taunting the deceased for bringing insufficient dowry. She admitted that Ram Chand, respondent, had come to their house later on, on the death of her Jeth, but they did not make any complaint regarding harassment or demand of dowry in the Panchayat.

PW-3 Urmila Devi, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, had stated that she learnt about the missing of the deceased and the dead body was taken out and two stones were tied to the body, meaning thereby that effort had been made by the deceased to take her life with no chance of saving. She clearly stated that the parents of the deceased never made any complaint to her regarding maltreatment or bringing of less dowry. She further stated that the accused never gave beatings to the deceased and maltreated her, who used to insist her husband to keep her at Delhi, but due to non-availability of suitable house, he could not keep her. This may be the cause that the deceased was not happy in her in-laws house. However, this witness, who is also the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, has admitted that no complaint was ever made to her about the maltreatment.

PW-4 Gurdial is the son of the complainant, aged 13 years, who was only sent alongwith the deceased to the house of her in-laws. PW-5 Harditi Devi has stated that she once went to the house of Rattan Chand. The deceased came there and was weeping and on enquiry, the deceased stated that she was beaten up and was turned out after keeping the children. She stated that she cannot tell the date or year and has not even stated the probable time when the deceased complained to her. It is on record that the deceased was turned out and the children were kept by the respondents, but there is nothing on the record to substantiate the beatings given to the deceased and by which of the accused persons.

PW-11 SI Kailash Walia had conducted the inquest and the dead body was found with two big stones, which were tied inside the shirt. The postmortem report was only tendered in evidence as Ext.PC since the cause of death due to drowning was not disputed by the accused persons as per their statements recorded by the Court.

On appraisal of the above evidence, it is clear that the evidence led by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the charge in regard to demand of dowry, maltreatment or beatings as no specific versions have been given by any of the witnesses and their statements are not corroborative in regard to maltreatment. Therefore, the view taken by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence that the prosecution has failed to prove their case cannot be termed as perverse calling for an interference by this Court. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which stands dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.