State of H.P. vs Baldev Singh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 24.09.1998 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharmshala in Sessions Case No. 18-J/98 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable u/s 304B read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

The undisputed facts are that the deceased Manju Devi was married to accused Baldev Singh. Accused Sagro Devi is the mother of Baldev Singh and Swarna Devi and Saroj Kumari are the sisters of Baldev Singh. The marriage of deceased Manju with accused Baldev Singh took place on 2.11.1997. She after marriage went to her matrimonial home. On 4.11.1997 Manju Devi alongwith her husband and brother returned to her parental home for ceremony of ''Harphera''. This is a ceremony where the newly wedded lady visits the maternal home within a few days of her marriage. Thereafter, Manju Devi alongwith her husband and other family members went back to her matrimonial home. It is also not disputed that on the next day i.e. 5.11.1997 the family of the husband Baldev Singh celebrated the marriage by inviting a lot of people to their house and a ''Dham'' was served. On the evening of 5.11.1997 itself Manju Devi was brought back to her parental home by the husband, his mother and three brother-in-laws. They complained that Manju Devi had acted in an insane manner. According to them, Manju was mentally unstable and was mad. Manju Devi thereafter stayed in the house of her parents. It is not disputed that on the next day Manju Devi was got admitted at Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital at Pathankot being run by PW-3 Dr. Kanwar Raj Pal Singh and she was discharged on 14.11.1997.

According to the prosecution on 6.11.1997 PW-6 Ajay Singh, brother of Manju went to her matrimonial home and asked the accused and other family members to return her ornaments and clothes. They refused to return the same to Ajay and told him that he should first send his father and then they would return the ornaments and clothes to the father. On 8th November, 1997 father of Manju Devi, PW-2 Rai Singh, alongwith the Pradhan of the Panchayat PW-8 and some other persons went to the house of the accused in village Kathal. Talks took place to settle the matter amicably and therefore, PW-9 Sudershana Devi, who was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Amela having jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat Kathal was also called. The matter was amicably settled and Manju Devi continued to live with her parents even after her discharge from the hospital. According to the prosecution, on 2nd February, 1998 accused Saroj Kumari went to the house of the parents of Manju and requested them to send Manju to her matrimonial home. PW-2 Rai Singh informed Saroj Kumari that a wedding was to take place in their family on 6th February and he would send Manju to her matrimonial home thereafter. Admittedly, on 8th February, 1998 Manju came to the matrimonial home. It is also not disputed that in the afternoon of 17th February, 1998 she committed suicide by burning herself. Report in this behalf was first lodged by accused No. 1 with Police Chowki Nagrota Surian, which was entered in the daily diary No. 23 on 18.2.1998 at 7.30 a.m. PW-2 father of the deceased lodged a complaint at 6.00 p.m with the Police Station Haripur in which he alleged that the deceased had committed suicide because her in-laws were harassing her and treating her with cruelty since she had brought inadequate dowry. After registration of the F.I.R. Ext. 13/A the police investigated the matter and after completion of investigation challan was filed against the accused for having committed the offences aforesaid.

The only disputed question which arises in this case is whether the accused persons were treating the deceased with cruelty of the type envisaged u/s 498A and Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The only allegation levelled against the accused is that they taunted the deceased for bringing inadequate dowry and told her that her father was a retired Subedar from the army but he had not given a scooter or a cooler. If these allegations are proved to be true then it could be a case of dowry death falling within the ambit of Section 304B. However, on going through the entire evidence it is evident that this story was cooked up at a later stage. According to the father PW-2 Rai Singh, brother PW-6 Ajay Singh and mother Pushpa Devi, when Manju Devi was brought back to her parental home on 5.11.1997 the family of the accused persons complained that she was mad and living in an insane manner. It is further stated that when they later inquired from Manju as to what had happened she informed them that she was taunted for bringing less dowry and she was also told that she was not a suitable match for accused No. 1 and therefore, she suffered a nervous break-down. This part of the prosecution story that Manju Devi had complained to her parents about her being taunted for bringing inadequate dowry is not supported by the other evidence on record.

As pointed out above, a Panchayat was held between the parties on 8th November, 1997 less than three days after Manju came home. In this Panchayat the parents of the girl would have obviously complained that accused No. 1 and his family members had taunted their daughter for bringing inadequate dowry. PW-8 Baldev Singh Pradhan of the Panchayat Kathala having jurisdiction over the village of the parents of the deceased Manju and Sudershana Devi, Pradhan of Panchayat Amela, having jurisdiction over the village of the accused, have stated that the only complaint by the accused side was that Manju alias Laxmi was mad. This allegation was contested by the parents of Manju. According to them she was not suffering from any mental ailment. It is also clear from the statement of these witnesses that the accused persons had agreed to keep Manju in their house subject to the condition that she should be treated and got cured of her mental ailments. These witnesses have clearly stated that the parents of Manju agreed for the said proposal.

It is the prosecution case itself that Manju Devi was infact admitted in the Psychiatric Hospital at Pathankot on 6.11.1997 and remained admitted there and discharged on 14.11.1997. PW-3 Dr. Kanwar Raj Pal Singh has been examined and has stated that Manju was suffering from acute transitional situational reaction. According to him this reaction could be caused if the deceased was taunted for bringing inadequate dowry but could also be caused in case she had been got married against her wishes. She remained an indoor patient for more than one week. From the evidence of PW-3 as well as from the record of treatment Ext.DA it is apparent that medication was prescribed to her for a further period even after discharge. There is nothing on record to prove that Manju actually consumed the medicines prescribed to her.

In view of the facts and evidence discussed here-in-above, it is apparent that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was a demand of dowry by the accused side. It is also proved that the deceased was suffering from sever mental disorder which required her hospitalization. Therefore, the possibility of her having committed suicide in a state of depression cannot be ruled out. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was led to commit suicide on account of cruelty meted out to her by the accused.

Therefore, the learned trial Court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.