State of H.P. vs Amar Dev 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 19.2.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 23.4.1997, a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was made by PW-4 Jagdish Lal, father of deceased Kusam Lata, in which, he alleged that he had performed the marriage of his daughter in the month of October, 1994, with respondent No. 1 Amar Dev, who was serving in Telephone Department at Shimla. He alleged that at that time Kusam Lata was living with her in-laws in their house and at sometime she was staying with her husband. It was alleged that when ever he or any other family members wanted to call Kusam Lata, in-laws of the deceased were not sending her and used to ill-treat her. On 21.4.1997, he had gone to the house of Kusam Lata to call her, but the other respondents refused to send her and respondent No. 1 was not in his house and he came back on 22.4.1997. At 9.15 P.M., he got a telephonic message that his daughter Kusam Lata was seriously ill and had been admitted in Bilaspur Hospital. He alongwith other persons went there and found that Kusam Lata had died because of taking of some poisonous medicines. It was alleged that the respondents who are husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased, used to maltreat her and resultantly the deceased took the step. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, 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.

On appraisal of the statement of Medical Officer PW-3 Dr. N.K. Sankhyan, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased. It is clear that the deceased had no injury marks on her body and the cause of death was opined as cardio respiratory failure as a result of consumption of some poison. After seeing the Chemical Examiner opinion, the Medical Officer opined that she died due to consumption of aluminium phosphide poisoning.

PW-4 Jagdish Lal is the father of the deceased, who stated that respondent No. 1 treated his daughter well for about 7-8 months and thereafter started treating her with cruelty, about which there were no specific allegations in the report lodged by him in the police. He stated about his visit on 21.4.1997 when the other respondents except respondent No. 1, who was not present in the house, refused to send his daughter. On the next day, he had received telephonic information that his daughter had been admitted in District Hospital, Bialspur. He is not an illiterate, but has been working as Office Kanungo and as such, it is clear that in case his daughter was being harassed for any reason, he would have taken steps to bring it to the notice of Panchayat or lodged a report with the police, which is not so. He admitted that his daughter had remained with her husband for about six months in 1995. He also admitted several visits made by his daughter alongwith her husband to their house and in case, behaviour of the husband was not proper, it is quite likely that he would not have visited his in-laws. He admitted that he never informed the police that the accused persons were seeking more and more funds from his daughter after the birth of her son. Nothing material has come up in the statement of the father of the deceased to prove that there was any maltreatment or the deceased was treated with cruelty or there were any demands of dowry.

PW-7 Ashwani Kumar is the younger brother of the deceased, who stated that accused No.1 to 4 started treated his sister with cruelty without any rhyme and reason. He also stated that the accused persons had not permitted his sister to visit them. There is nothing as to the fact that the deceased ever complained to him about the cruelty, when such complaint was made and what was the reason given for cruelty meted out to her.

PW-8 Roshan Lal stated that PW-4 Jagdish Lal is my elder son and his daughter was married to respondent No. 1. He came up with a new plea that he had been told that Kusam Lata visited them and was stating that accused persons had been asking for more and more funds and jewellery of gold. He also stated that the accused persons had been treating Kusam Lata with cruelty for non-compliance of their demands. He also stated that Kusam Lata had not informed him that the accused persons had beaten her at any stage. This witness has come up with a new story, which was not the case of the father of the deceased or his brother, as has been discussed above.

PW-9 Brahmi Devi is the mother of the deceased, who stated that her daughter was put to hard labour after 15 days of birth of the child. She had been directed to cut and carry grass loads from distant and far off area. She also stated that the accused persons had not been permitting her daughter to visit them and when she visited, she came without her child.

From the above discussion of the above evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that nothing material has come up in the statements of close relations of the deceased including her parents and brother. They are not consistent in regard to the cause of the dispute or that the deceased was being treated with cruelty due to any demands of dowry and for any other reason. The evidence led by the prosecution is not cogent and reliable and is vague in nature and there is nothing on record to show that on some visit these facts had been told by the deceased to them and they lodge any report with the Panchayat or police or took any action in this regard. The evidence led by the prosecution is quite shaky and the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case, cannot be termed as 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.