State of Himachal Pradesh vs Sandeep Kumar and Others

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, dated 30.1.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

Respondent No.1 is the husband of the deceased Sarla Devi alias Sarita, hereafter also referred to as the deceased, while respondents No.2 and 3 are the brother-in-law and the mother-in-law, respectively, of the deceased.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the marriage of Sarla Devi, daughter of the complainant Mast Ram, was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 1.12.1997 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. On 18.7.1998, PW-1 Mast Ram, father of the deceased, learnt that his daughter was serious and has been admitted in the hospital at Barsar. He alongwith three of his relatives reached there at 3.30 p.m. on 19.7.1998 and found that his daughter had been admitted in an unconscious state. He had a talk with the Medical officer who informed that his daughter had consumed some poisonous substances. On the same day, PW-1 Mast Ram visited Police Station, Bangana and lodged a report Ext.PW-1/A in which he alleged that Sarla alias Sarita committed suicide since she had been maltreated for bringing less dowry and had been beaten up also. On this report, a case was registered against all the respondents and the learned trial Court tried the respondents for the offences mentioned above, leading to their acquittal.

We have heard Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant and Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the respondents, and have gone through the record of the case.

The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State were that the guilt of the respondents was established beyond any reasonable doubt and the findings to the contrary are not sustainable and as such are liable to be set aside.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded therein.

This fact is not disputed that the death of the deceased took place within about 7-8 months of her marriage since she was married in the month of December, 1997 and died on 19.7.1998. According to the opinion of PW-4 Dr.Mohinder Singh running a private nursing home at Barsar, the deceased was brought to his clinic on 19.7.1998 at about 11.30 a.m. and he was informed that she was suffering from vomiting and pain in abdomen. On his inquiry, the patient told him that she had taken some tablets for headache and she was treated for the same. She died at 4.50 p.m. Then he learnt from the altercation in between the relatives of the deceased that the deceased Sarla Devi alias Sarita consumed some insecticides.

The postmortem on the body of the deceased was conducted by Dr.S.K. Nanda and the accused persons had admitted the postmortem report Ext.PX as correct and, therefore, the Medical Officers Dr.S.K. Nanda and Dr.Gianender, who committed the postmortem on the body of the deceased, were not examined by the prosecution. A perusal of the postmortem report Ext.PX shows that the cause of the death was to be given by the Medical Officers after Chemical Examiner''s report. After the Chemical Examiner''s report, it was reported that the viscera contained A1 phosphide and the cause of death was opined due to aluminum phosphide poisoning.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the deceased had committed the suicide by taking some poisonous substance, which fact has not been disputed.

The statements of the father of the deceased and other witnesses examined to prove maltreatment has to be referred to at this stage.

The first statement in this regard is that of PW-1 Mast Ram, father of the deceased. He refers to the first visit of the deceased to their house 15 days after the marriage. He stated that his daughter told him and other family members that the accused Sandeep Kumar was demanding more dowry such as ring for his father, fridge etc. The deceased also told that the family members of the accused are not happy on account of the presents given to them in the shape of cloth as the same were less in number. He had a talk with the accused Sandeep Kumar in this regard and told him that due to paucity of funds, he cannot give the aforesaid articles at this time and would arrange for the same later on. He refers to the second visit of the deceased in the month of Baisakh and again repeated the same demands being made by the accused. The deceased also told him that since their demands have not been met by him, she was being beaten up by the accused Sandeep Kumar, Bimla Devi and Raj Kumar. He again talked to accused Sandeep Kumar, who was accompanying the deceased at that time. He promised to the accused that in the month of July, he might be able to arrange the aforesaid articles as he was expecting some funds being arranged by that time.

PW-1 Mast Ram further refers to the third visit of the deceased and the accused on 17th July, 1998, when he was not present in the house. He returned on 18th July, had a talk with the accused and told him that due to some urgent work he had to leave for Una and would return in the evening, but could not return on that evening. On the next day at 2.30 p.m., he learnt that his daughter was serious and was admitted in the hospital. In cross examination, he had clearly admitted that the settlement of alliance was done through the sister of his Jija. They were told that no dowry would be accepted and girl would be taken in three cloths. He admitted that his daughter visited his house after the marriage three times and all the three times, she was accompanied by her husband. Now, he states that for the first two times, they had cordiality but third time, it was not so. Meaning thereby that he had made a reference to the demands on first two visits but in case there was cordiality or no stress or strain was there, how he had been informed about these demands. He stated that on 19th when he came back, he came to know that the accused had forcibly taken his daughter back to his house. He admitted that in the statement PW-1/A, it has not been mentioned that the accused had forcibly taken his daughter in his absence. He was confronted with Ext.PW-1/A, wherein it was not so recorded. He had stated that in Ext.PW-1/A, he had written that he would be able to arrange some funds in the month of July when the deceased visited him in the month of Baisakh. He was confronted with Ext.PW-1/A wherein it was not so recorded. He again stated that he had told the accused that articles/amount would be arranged in the month of July, which does not find mention in Ext.PW-1/A, with which he was confronted. He admitted that he did not talk about these demands to his Jija''s sister since his son-in-law had asked him not to talk on this aspect. He further states that he had talked about these demands to his father, to his brother''s wife and Ward Panch Om Parkash also. They had advised him to talk to the accused persons but his son-in-law had asked him not to talk with them in that behalf.

The next witness is PW-2 Manorama Kumari, who stated that the deceased was her niece. The deceased came with the accused after 15-20 days of her marriage to their house. The deceased told her that the accused Sandeep Kumar, Bimla Devi and the brother-in-law of the deceased, namely, Raj Kumar used to maltreat her on account of not bringing sufficient dowry articles. The deceased also told her that the accused was not happy with the cloths given to them as presents in the marriage. They were also offended because a gold ring was not given to the father-in-law of the deceased. She also stated about the demand of fridge. The second visit she refers to in the month of Baisakh, when the deceased repeated the aforesaid demands of the accused regarding dowry articles. The deceased also told her that the accused persons had started beating her. They talked to Sandeep Kumar and told him that the aforesaid demands would be met in near future and they left the place. About the third visit on 17.7.1998, she also stated that the deceased told her that unless she was given the aforesaid articles, she would not return to her in-laws house as she was badly maltreated and beaten by the accused. On the next day, she was forcibly taken by the accused and on the next day, she died. PW-2 Manorama Kumari stated differently when she states that the marriage was not arranged through any one and father-in-law of the deceased had approached them for marriage of their son with the deceased. This is contrary to the version of the father of the deceased PW-1 Mast Ram that the marriage was arranged through relative. She admitted that there was no demand of dowry on the part of the accused in the marriage. She admitted that in regard to demand of dowry and beating or about maltreatment they did not talk to anyone. PW-1 Mast Ram had stated that the accused had left with the deceased in his absence while this witness has stated that her Jeth PW-1 and his wife had sent the deceased with the accused Sandeep Kumar to her in-laws village.

The third witness is PW-5 Hari Chand, grand father of the deceased. He stated that the deceased used to come earlier also to their house and was telling about the maltreatment on account of bringing insufficient dowry and further demanding dowry through other members of the family. He does not mention about the probable time of the visit that the deceased visited the house after 15 days. He does not state about the demand of fridge or ring or inferior cloths and does not refer specifically about the two visits made by the deceased 15 days after her marriage and once in the month of Baisakh. He states about the third visit on 17th July, when she talked to him about the maltreatment. Now he states that there was a demand of fridge etc. and that the cloths were not of good quality. He now stated that they used to taunt her for not giving gold ring for her father-in-law. They talked to Panch Om Parkash about the dispute, who also suggested that let the deceased go with the accused and they will go to their house on a later date. He denied that he alongwith his son had sent the deceased to her in-laws house, which has been so stated by PW-2 Manorama Kumari. He was confronted with his statement that he had told the Ward Panch Om Parkash about the maltreatment, but there was no reference in his police statement with which he was confronted. He clearly stated that before the marriage was settled, the accused side had stated that no dowry would be accepted. He referred about the maltreatment to the deceased also, but there was no mention in his police statement Ext.DB, with which he was confronted.

The said Ward Panch Om Parkash appears to have not been examined since one Om Parkash examined has stated only about the recovery of soil from the place and is a witness to the seizure memo in regard to cloths. He clearly stated that he did not tell the police that her in-laws used to maltreat her. No other witness has stated in regard to maltreatment, demands of dowry or beating.

On appraisal of the above evidence, it is clear that when the marriage was settled, the accused party had specifically stated that they will not accept any dowry articles and, therefore, it looks improbable that such demand would have been made subsequently though the possibility cannot be ruled out. However, in regard to the visits or the specific items demanded, the evidence cannot be said to be cogent as well as reliable to hold that such demands were made which led to the maltreatment being meted out to the deceased. There is nothing on the record to show that any complaint was ever made to any person, Panchayat or to the police in this regard. It also looks surprising that no complaint was made to any of the authorities by PW-1 Mast Ram, father of the deceased when he himself was a Journalist by profession, who must be aware that in case such maltreatment was being meted out to his daughter, he would have brought the same to the notice of any of the authorities such as Panchayat, police etc., but that is not so. It is in the evidence of PW-4 Dr. Mohinder Singh in whose Clinic the deceased was admitted at about 4.30 P.M. and she died at 4.50 P.M. This shows that the deceased was alive for five hours and she was also conscious as per his statement till 4.00 P.M., but nothing was told to the Medical Officer by the deceased. In the present case, the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are also not corroborative on these aspects. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt 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-State, which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged.