State of Himachal Pradesh vs Vinod Kumar, Shubh Karan, Manoj Kumar @ Vipan and Smt. Sukanya Devi

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 31.5.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, in Sessions Case No. 21/03 RBT 32/2004 whereby the accused were acquitted of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 326 read with Section 34 IPC. At the outset, we may mention that respondent No. 2 Shubh Karan died during the pendency of the appeal and hence the appeal has already abated qua him.

The undisputed facts are that one Mamta Devi was married to Vinod Kumar. Deceased respondent No. 2 Shubh Karan and respondent No. 4 Smt. Sukanya Devi are the parents of Vinod Kumar and accused No. 3 is his real brother. It is also not disputed that the marriage of Mamta Devi was solemnized in the year 1999 and on 27.11.2002 Mamta Devi committed suicide.

The prosecution allegation is that Mamta Devi committed suicide due to the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her by the accused and therefore, they are liable to be convicted for the offences aforesaid. F.I.R. Ext. PW-1/A was registered on the basis of the statement of PW-1 Bikram Singh. A perusal of this F.I.R shows that while getting the statement recorded u/s 154 Cr.P.C. he has stated that his sister Mamta Devi used to tell him and her parents that her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law used to taunt her on small issues and used to harass her. The accused used to taunt the deceased by saying that she does not know how to do house work and was extravagant in her habits as she was using too much oil, etc. It was also stated that accused Vinod was serving outside the village and whenever he used to come home then he treated her with cruelty on small issues. The brother and parents of the deceased used to advice her that she should settle in the house of her in-laws.

While appearing in the witness box, PW-1 improved his statement and stated that the deceased used to complain that she used to be beaten by her husband and his family members. In the initial complaint made there was no allegation in this regard. Even if other allegations are accepted as the gospel truth it is apparent that at best the mother-in-law and the other family members used to taunt and trouble the accused by saying that she did not know house work and was extravagant in her way of cooking meals. In any household an elder person would advise the younger to be more careful with the material available in the house and advice of this nature cannot be said to be cruelty of such a nature which would fall within the meaning of Section 498A. From the evidence, it is apparent that after the deceased got married she kept studying and the in-laws permitted her to continue her studies and she had appeared in the B.Com final examination just before her death. There was no complaint made by the family members either to the police, the Gram Panchayat or to any member of the Biradri that the deceased was being treated with cruelty. No independent witnesses have been examined and there are many improvements in the statements of brother PW-1 Bikram Singh, mother PW-2 Sita Devi and father PW-3 Khiali Ram. Their statement that the deceased was being beaten by the accused persons is not believable since these facts were not stated to the police at the initial stage. The learned trial Court after discussing the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that no act of beating can be ascribed to the accused and there is no evidence worth the name to support this allegation. Therefore, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused and we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged.