State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ram Dittu

Justice Sanjay Karol, J.—For an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 4.8.2005, accused was put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 6.3.2007, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Case No. 9FTC/7 of 2006, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Ram Dittu, accused stands acquitted of the charged offence. It is the case of prosecution that deceased Smt. Nisha Devi, daughter of Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1), was married to accused Ram Dittu. Accused was residing in village Kunkunu, tehsil Arki, District Solan, H.P. Two children from the wed lock were born. Allegedly, accused started physically assaulting the deceased since the time of his marriage. Deceased brought this fact to the notice of her relatives, that is, father Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1) and uncle Sh. Tulsi Ram (PW-2). In the year 1996, matter was also brought to the notice of Sanyari Mor Panchayat, where meeting was convened and all the members of the panchayat advised the accused to improve his conduct. Despite his assurance, accused continued to physically assault the deceased. In the month of August, 2005, when the accused again gave beatings to the deceased, she returned to her parental house. However, on the assurances of one Sh. Ramesh and his wife, both relatives of the accused, that they take responsibility with regard to the conduct of the accused, deceased returned to her matrimonial house. Later, on 4.8.2005 deceased consumed poison. She was taken to the Primary Health Centre Darlaghat, where she was administered medical treatment and despite best possible efforts could not survive. The matter was brought to the notice of the police and entry in the roj namcha (Ext. PW 5/B) dated 4.8.2005 was made. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted at the Civil Hospital Arki, District Solan and report (Ext. PX-13) taken on record by the police. After perusal of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Junga (Ext. P-Z), the Doctor, in the Post Mortem Report, opined that the deceased had died due to paralysis of respiratory muscle leading to respiratory arrest and there were signs of organochloro poisoning in the body. The dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased which was later on cremated by the accused. Subsequently on 20.8.2005 Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1) lodged F.I.R. at Police Station, Darlaghat against the accused. The said F.I.R No. 105/2005 (Ext. PW 1/A) dated 20.8.2005 was registered against the accused for having committed an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. The matter was investigated by ASI Shankar Singh (PW-7) and with the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 306 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to establish its case, in all prosecution examined seven witnesses and statement of the accused u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded.

Appreciating the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused of the charged offence, hence the present appeal.

We have heard Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General duly assisted by Sh. J. S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General on behalf of the appellant-State as also Mr. V. S. Chauhan, learned counsel on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Having minutely examined the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity in the same.

In our considered view, delay in lodging the F.I.R. by Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1), who is the father of the deceased, has not been sufficiently explained. According to this witness, he learnt about the death of his daughter on 4th of August, 2005, which is the day when she consumed poison. He justifies the delay of sixteen days in lodging the F.I.R. by stating that "... we could not go to the police station as were busy in performing last rites of Nisha." Now this explanation, to our mind, is not plausible at all. This we say so for the reason that this witness in his cross examination admits that having learnt about the death of his daughter, he along with his brother Sh. Tulsi Ram (PW-2), pradhan Sh. Sant Ram and many other persons of the village went to Arki where police was already present. Both he and the Pradhan had talks with the police and police also recorded his statement. (This statement is not on record) Thereafter police handed over the dead body of the deceased to him and the accused. He admits that all the last rites of the deceased were performed by the accused. He also admits that he participated in all the ceremonies, including the "kriya ceremony" which was held on the eleventh day after the death of his daughter. Now if last rites of the deceased were performed by her husband, then obviously his statement that he was busy in performing the last rites of the deceased cannot be said to be true. Assuming that he was busy in performance of such last rites and ceremonies connected thereto, still what prevented him, his brother and the Pradhan or other residents of his village from bringing the matter to the notice of the police with regard to the alleged conduct of the accused, has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. It is not that he did not want to bring the matter to the notice of the police for the reason that he had to secure the future of his grand children or that he was otherwise prevented from doing so by the relatives of the accused or that it was thought prudent not to rake up the issue at that time. This witness admits that F.I.R. was lodged after consultation with Sant Ram, Tulsi Ram and Chet Ram. Predetermination of minds and due deliberation with regard to the contents of the F.I.R. is thus writ large. Hence, in our considered view, complainant has not been able to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R which in the instant case, we find is fatal.

Coming to the allegations of physical cruelty caused by the accused to the deceased and the accused having abetted his wife to commit suicide, we again find testimonies of the relevant witnesses i.e., Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1), his brother Sh. Tulsi Ram (PW-2) and Sh. Chet Ram (PW-3) member of the Sanyari Mor Panchayat, not to be inspiring in confidence.

Undisputedly and even according to the father (PW-1), accused and the deceased were married for about 12 - 13 years prior to the date of incident. According to him, two sons were born from the wed-lock. As on the date of the death of the deceased they were six and eight years of age. Now they have not been examined in Court. Why so? has not been explained. In the instant facts, their examination was absolutely necessary to establish the fact and corroborate the testimony of PW-1, with regard to the alleged beatings given by the accused to the deceased. Significantly PW-1 only states that in the year 1996, panchayat of gram panchayat Sanyari Mor was convened where Pradhan Sh. Sant Ram and Panch Sh. Chet Ram were present and members of the panchayat advised the parties and sent them back. Despite the same, accused did not mend his ways and continued to beat his wife. In the month of August 2005, when accused again gave beatings to the deceased, she came to his house and stayed for four - five days. Thereafter, one Sh. Ramesh and his wife, relatives of the accused, took the deceased on their own responsibility. Now neither Sh. Ramesh nor his wife have been examined in Court. Also pradhan Sh. Sant Ram has not been examined in Court. None of these persons were associated by the police during investigation.

With regard to convening of the meeting of the panchayat, we find that there is contradiction in the statement of Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1) and Sh. Chet Ram (PW-3). According to PW�1, complaint was made orally, whereas, according to PW-3, PW-1 had made a written complaint. Now police has neither investigated nor placed on record the alleged written complaint made by PW-1.

Also allegations of beatings given by the accused to the deceased, as made out by Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1), to our mind, do not inspire confidence. In his cross examination, Sh. Jagat Ram (PW-1) admits that "during their 13 -14 years of married life the accused and my daughter many times came together to my house. Nisha never made any complaint that the accused did not provide food and clothing to her." Further this witness states that the alleged beatings were given by the accused to the deceased for the reason that he suspected her of infidelity, which fact, he clarifies, was not told to him by the deceased but by his wife who incidentally has not been examined in Court. He has made improvement from his previous statement and cannot be said to be absolutely reliable witness. Hence testimony of this witness in no manner establishes the prosecution case of the accused having abetted his wife to commit suicide by consuming poison.

We find that Sh. Tulsi Ram (PW-2) has tried to corroborate the version of PW-1. He states that he was present at the time when panchayat was convened in the year 1996, but in his cross-examination he does not remember the proceedings of the panchayat.

Testimony of Sh. Chet Ram (PW-3), as we have already discussed, stands contradicted and belied by PW-1. Hence we do not find the same to be inspiring in confidence.

Investigating Officer, ASI-Shankar Singh (PW-7) in his uncontroverted testimony has deposed that investigation revealed that on the day of occurrence of the crime, accused had gone to his fields for work and had returned only in the evening.

That deceased had died on account of consumption of poison has not been disputed before us.

Having perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case that the accused abetted his wife to commit suicide by consuming poison, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material and piece of evidence on record. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., and State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, it cannot be said that the Court below incorrectly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. Present appeal is thus dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.