State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ramesh Kumar and Others

V.K. Ahuja, J.—This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. u/s 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, dated 3.3.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A/304-B/34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.3.1995, at about 4.15 P.M., a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was made by Smt. Kamla Devi, who stated that she had married her eldest daughter Neelam Kumari @ Babli in December, 1990 with Ramesh Kumar, respondent. She stated that when she went to the house of her daughter after two years, she was told by her that respondent Ramesh Kumar, her mother-in-law, father�in-law, maternal uncle, maternal aunt, sisters-in-law and one Swami Jagdanand, all the accused, used to maltreat her that her parents had not given sufficient dowry and used to give her beatings and threat to take her life. Her daughter was given beatings by her in-laws and in July, 1994, when her daughter came to her house, she was informed that she was kept inside the room for six days without any food or water. It was also stated that there was demand of Fridge, Sofa, golden chain and a share in the land and her daughter lived in her house. Thereafter, accused Ramesh Kumar came to her house and he begged to be excused and stated that he will not give her beatings and her daughter was sent with Ramesh Kumar accused. On 14.3.1995, at about 12.00, she learnt that her daughter has died in her in-laws house and she went there and made statement to the police, on which a case was registered. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

The submissions made by learned Deputy Advocate General were that there is sufficient evidence on record and, therefore, the findings of learned trial Court to the contrary are liable to be reversed.

Smt. Kamla Devi, mother of the deceased, has been examined as PW-1, who stated about the marriage and the harassment caused to her daughter by all the respondents and her husband for insufficient dowry. They were also demanding Fridge, Sofa, golden chain and ` 50,000/- in cash, about which there was no reference in the complaint lodged with the police. She also stated that four years prior to her death, the deceased were kept inside the room for six days and was not given any food. Her daughter remained for two months in her house. Ramesh Kumar came to her house and took her daughter and assured of good behaviour. Her daughter was killed within two months of her going with the accused. She also stated that the accused persons were asking her daughter to serve Baba and when she refused, she was given physical beatings by all the accused persons. The deceased insisted that the Baba should be served by her mother-in-law and she was not going to serve him. In cross-examination, she clearly admitted that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons. She was told about the demand of dowry by the accused persons only by his daughter and one Shyam Singh. She never made any complaint to the police or Deputy Commissioner. She stated that whenever Ramesh accused visited her house, he was threatening to take poison, in case she will not send her daughter with him. She stated that the deceased gave birth two children and at that time and at the time of operations, her mother-in-law was with her. She admitted that her daughter was admitted by the accused persons in the hospital on all the three occasions and denied that she had not paid any money at that time. She also admitted that blood was given by accused Ramesh at the time of second operation of her daughter. She stated that she could not state about the demand of cash to the police since she became unconscious after hearing the sad news of the death of her daughter. This she stated for the first time. She also stated that the accused has not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter and they were demanding dowry from his daughter and not from her.

PW-2 Baldev Singh is the uncle of the deceased. He stated that all the accused were harassing the deceased since she has not brought sufficient dowry. This fact was disclosed to him by the deceased and her mother. He also stated that the deceased had told her that her mother-in-law was having illicit relation with Baba and she was objecting to this relationship, but her mother-in-law was asking her to serve the Baba. When she refused, she was given beatings by the accused persons. He also stated that six months prior to her death, the deceased came to her mother and told that the accused persons were demanding Fridge etc. and asked her to bring the dowry articles. In his absence, accused Ramesh Kumar came and took Neelam with him. He stated that the deceased was physically beaten by the accused persons, but he had not seen any injury on the person of the deceased. He did not make any complaint to the Panchayat or police regarding the beating given by the accused persons. The accused never demanded dowry in his presence.

PW-3 Balbir Singh, a co-villager, has stated that he was told by the mother of the deceased that her in-laws used to beat Neelam for the dowry and were harassing her. About 11/2 months prior to the death of Neelam, Kamla came to his house and took him to her house with other villagers. It was not so stated by the mother of the deceased. He stated that Neelam was ready to go with Ramesh at that time and neither Kamla nor Neelam stated anything at that time in his presence.

PW-6 Dharmesh Kumar had arranged this marriage and he stated about the harassment and demand of dowry by accused Ramesh and other family members. However, the items which were demanded by the accused were not told at that time. He talked to accused Ramesh, who told him that he had arranged the marriage with an illiterate girl, which was never the case of any of the relatives of the deceased. Neelam was sent on the assurance of respondent Ramesh and thereafter, Neelam was kept happily by the accused persons. He gave his opinion only that the accused might have started beating and harassing her and she was sent with the accused. He also stated that Neelam never told him about the involvement of Baba in her harassment or beatings or demand of dowry. He stated that there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons before the marriage or at the time when marriage was solemnized and only Neelam had told him that the accused persons are giving her beatings and harassing her for not bringing dowry. He also stated that she had not told anything against Baba Jagata Nand and against Bachittar Singh and she was rather praising both the persons. He also stated that in their village there is no custom of giving or taking dowry.

PW-5 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased alongwith other Medical Officer and had given their report Ext. PW5/B. According to their opinion, the deceased died due to Asphyxia after consuming aluminium phosphide poison.

From the discussion of the evidence, it is clear that there was no specific demand of dowry at the time of marriage or thereafter and subsequently, this fact has been introduced in the evidence by the statement of the mother of the deceased and other relatives. There is a reference of demand of some items, but that does not stand substantiated from the statement of the witnesses or demand of cash about which the mother of the deceased stated for the first time. There is no mention of specific name of any person demanding the dowry except the name of accused and when efforts are made to rope in as many as relatives of the husband, the possibility of the statement of the deceased losing its veracity or truthfulness cannot be ruled out. There is no mention as to when these demands were made in whose presence and which items were demanded by which of the accused. The evidence led was quite general in nature and witnesses do not corroborate one another on the specific items so demanded. There appears to be some substance in the plea that the said Baba one of the accused, who may be responsible for the marital discord since the allegations are being as against him and mother-in-law and the deceased was being compelled to serve the Baba and she was not willing to serve him, may be for the said reason or any other reason. The mediator in the family at the time of marriage has stated that the deceased was praising Baba and had no grievance against him. Thus, this part of the evidence is quite contrary and this is general in nature, though suggestive of marital discord in between the deceased and her husband and family members, do not substantiate that the deceased took the extreme step of taking poison due to the demand made by them of dowry articles and there is no proof of any beatings on record and any MLC or any report lodged with the police or Panchayat.

In view of the above discussion, the final conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court, 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 is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged forthwith.