State of H.P. vs Bimla Devi

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, Hamirpur, dated 7.5.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against her under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.7.1999 at 10.30 P.M., a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was made by PW-1 Pritam Chand, father of deceased Sandla Devi, to the police. In the statement, he alleged that he had married his daughter Sandla Devi with Pawan Kumar two years ago. He had given dowry articles according to his capacity. The mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased behaved properly for three months. Thereafter, her mother-in-law, present accused/ respondent started taunting his daughter about the dowry articles and stated that she will perform the second marriage of her son. Thereafter, the respondent gave beatings 2/3 times to his daughter, which fact she told him, when she visited their house. He advised his daughter that the matter will be enquired into. 11/2 years ago, he had gone to the village to enquire about the facts and 3/4 villagers gathered there, but the respondent denied having given beatings to his daughter. It was thereafter alleged that the respondent continued giving beatings to his daughter. Today at 7/7.15 P.M., he was informed by Pritam Chand, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, that his daughter has committed suicide and has died. On this statement made to the police, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed in the Court of learned JMIC-II, Hamirpur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondent, leading to her acquittal.

We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

From a perusal of the statement made by the father of the deceased, namely, Pritam Chand, it is clear that the first grievance made out by the complainant was that the respondent started taunting his daughter for the dowry articles and stated that she will perform second marriage of her son. The next point alleged against the respondent was that she gave beatings to his daughter 2/3 days times and thereafter, he visited the village, but the respondent denied having given beatings to his daughter. He further stated that thereafter also, the respondent continued beatings his daughter. It should be seen as to whether these facts were alleged in the complaint have been substantiated by the complainant and other witnesses or not.

Coming to the evidence, PW-1 has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint lodged by him. He now came up with the plea that when he went to the village of the respondent after six months and asked the accused as to why she was maltreating the deceased. He stated that the accused replied that she will not repeat the maltreatment, though it was alleged in the complaint that she had stated that she had not maltreated the deceased. Those persons were from the village of the accused. He now came up with the plea that on the festival of ''Nauhla'', the deceased alongwith her husband visited their village. The deceased repeated the allegations of maltreatment. He did not mention the month, date or year when the deceased visited him. He simply stated that the deceased repeated the allegations of maltreatment, but the reasons for maltreatment or its nature was not specified by him. In cross-examination, he clearly admitted that he did not report to the Pradhan Gram Panchayat or the police about the maltreatment and beatings given by the accused to the deceased. He stated that when he asked the accused in presence of witnesses, they threatened him with dire consequences. However, he did not make any complaint to the Panchayat or police in this regard. He admitted in his cross-examination that he has brought back the dowry articles to his house in the absence of the accused. Even in regard to the beatings or maltreatment as reiterated in the statement, he has not stated the nature of the maltreatment or beatings given by the respondent to the deceased. There is nothing that any report was lodged with the police, Panchayat or the beatings were brought to the notice of the Medical Officer from whom the deceased may have been examined at any time.

PW-2 Smt. Sagri devi, mother of the deceased, has stated now that after three months of the marriage the deceased told her that she was being maltreated by the accused, though in the complaint it was alleged that for three months, she was kept nicely. She further stated that the deceased told her that the accused used to taunt her by saying that dowry like television and fridge have not been brought by her and she should bring them. The complainant, who is father of the deceased, in his statement, has no where stated about the specific dowry articles demanded by the respondent. She stated that her son had gone to bring the deceased and her husband to her house on the festival of ''Nauhla''. The deceased appeared to be weak and then she enquired from her the reason and she told her that the respondent used to give her physical torture. She further stated that in presence of Jai Devi she examined the deceased and found that there was a contusion on her leg and also on the left side of her waist. However, these facts were never stated by the father of the deceased, to have been told to him at any time by his wife. She came with the plea that the deceased visited their house 13/14 days prior to her death and reiterated the allegations of maltreatment meted to her by the accused, but this was never stated by the father of the deceased that the deceased had come to their house some days prior to her death. The witness was confronted with her statement to the police Mark-X, where there is no reference of fridge or television. She further stated that she did not enquire about the swelling on the leg and contusion on the left side of waist, from her son-in-law. It was a natural conduct and in the facts of the case, it was quite likely that she would have enquired from her son-in-law. She further stated that her husband saw the injuries on the person of the deceased, which was never so stated by her husband. She also stated that she did not get the deceased treated from the Doctor during the stay of the deceased for 10 days in their house. She also stated that she did not make any complaint anywhere about the maltreatment of his daughter by the accused.

PW-3 Pritam Chand is the Pradhan of the Panchayat, who had told the complainant about the death of the deceased due to hanging. He admitted in cross-examination that the father of the deceased met him number of times after the marriage of the deceased, but he did not complaint anything to him.

PW-4 Pooran Chand has stated that the deceased and her husband are from his village and the deceased was known to him. He further stated that in the year 1999, husband of the accused came to him and told him that the deceased was not taking meals and she was angry with them. He was asked to patch up the matter and asked the deceased to take the meal. He reconciled the matter and came back. On the same day in the evening, he learnt that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. He admits his relationship with the deceased that she was his sister from village relation. He also stated that when he reconciled the matter in the morning, the deceased did not complain against anyone. In case, the deceased had some grievance on that day when she committed suicide and a quarrel had taken place in the morning, it was quite natural for this witness to enquire the cause of the dispute or the deceased should have told this fact to the witness, but he never stated so. He also stated that in the morning Roshan Lal and accused had left for a function in the house of a person, which was about one kilometer away from the house of the accused and at that time, the deceased was alone in the house and when the accused came back, she had already hanged herself. This clearly shows that the respondent was not present in the house at the time of the occurrence and there is nothing on record to show that some dispute had taken place with the respondent in the morning, but the complaint made by the husband of the accused was that the deceased was not taking meal, but no reason for any dispute was told by this witness or he had learnt from the deceased at any time.

PW-5 Dr. N.S. Dogra, conducted the postmortem and the report is that the deceased died because of suicidal hanging leading asphyxia.

PW-7 Jai Devi has stated that the deceased was the daughter of her husband''s younger brother. She stated that she invited the deceased for dinner on the occasion of ''Nauhla'' festival and then learnt on enquiry from the deceased that she was beaten by the respondent for bringing less dowry. She also observed that there were contusion on her left leg and left side of the waist and the mother of the deceased was also present there. The deceased was accompanied by her husband Pawan Kumar, who left in the morning on the next day and the deceased remained there for 4/5 days. In case, this witness had observed some injuries on the person of the deceased, it was quite natural for her to have enquired from the husband of the deceased or made a complaint to her, which is not so in the facts of the case. She admitted that no complaint was lodged by them with the Panchayat or police in regard to the beatings given by the accused to the deceased.

PW-8 Sarotan Devi is the sister of father of the deceased. She stated that the husband of the deceased came to her in village Chabutra and requested her to persuade the parents of Sandla Devi to send her to his house, as she is feeling humiliation with the stay of the deceased in the house of her parents. She replied that she has to visit the village of her brother and on that day she will persuade her brother and she visited the house of her brother after 3/4 days, who told her that she will not be sent as she was being given beatings by the respondent on the pretext of the less dowry. She requested her brother to send her on her responsibility and the deceased was sent alongwith herself and father-in-law of the deceased. In cross-examination, she stated in general only that the deceased complained to her that she was being ill treated by her motherin-law. She advised her that since it was her early period in her in-laws, she should have patience and with passage of time, she would learn working in her in-laws house.

From the above discussion of the evidence, it is clear that there were no specific demands of dowry or any specific dowry articles at any time. There is also clear that the allegations in general were about the maltreatment, but it was not specific as to what was the nature of the maltreatment and there is nothing specific on record in regard to the time, date or month or year when the deceased visited her parents and made a complaint to her parents in this regard. There is nothing on record to show that they brought these facts to the notice of the husband of the deceased and asked him to request his mother not to maltreat the deceased. The evidence led by the prosecution only leads to the inference that the disputes in the family were of a trivial nature, which take place in the household, but there is nothing on record that at any time for the injuries, the matter was reported to the Panchayat, police or any other authority or the girl was medically treated at any time about the injuries on her person, if any. The evidence led is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C. and the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court in this regard 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 respondent shall stand discharged forthwith.