State of H.P. vs Govind Ram 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 31.1.1997, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 306 and 498A I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 6.1.1994, at about, 3.30 P.M., a report was lodged with the police by one Dagi Ram that his daughter Sakina Devi alongwith her son had left the house of her in-laws saying that she was going to her parents house, but she did not reach their house and was missing for the last 10 days. A report was lodged with the police in regard to her missing, on which a case was registered by the police subsequently and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar, u/s 306 and 498A IPC. The case was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and on conclusion of the trial, the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under the sections mentioned above.

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

On appraisal of the record of the case, it is very much clear that the respondents before us are father-in-law of Sakina Devi daughter of Dagi Ram, her Jeth Bihari Lal and two Jethanis Parwati Devi and Kanta Devi, respondents, who faced trial before the learned trial Court. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that out of the statements of 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution, statements of 4 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Roshan Lal, PW-2 Dagi Ram, PW-3 Smt. Swarna Devi and PW-4 Smt. Kanta Devi can be said to be most material, whose statements need to be carefully scrutinized.

PW-1 Roshan Lal is the brother of deceased Sakina Devi, who stated that she was married to Balbir Singh about ten years ago. One son was born from this wedlock. For 5-6 years after marriage, his sister was living nicely, but thereafter her Jeth-Jethani separated themselves. He further stated that whenever Sakina was visiting their house, she was telling that her father-in-law and her Jeth and two Jethanis i.e. Bihari Lal, Parwati Devi and Kanta Devi were torturing her. They were pacifying her and telling her that everything would be set right with the passage of time. She told about the torture and maltreatment to him as well as her parents. He stated that he never reported the matter to the police or the Panchayat. In January, 1994, Sakina was sent to the house of her in-laws and she was reported missing for the last 10 days and thereafter, her body was recovered from the Dam. In cross-examination, he stated that Sakina had told regarding maltreatment and torture about 2-3 times, but he could not state the date, month or the year when she told this. He also stated that she was never given beating by the accused physically, but she was only tortured by words. He did not specifically give any reason for torturing or the words used by the accused persons in torturing her. He stated that they informed the Pradhan orally only. Sakina had met him one month prior to her death for the last time.

PW-2 Dagi Ram is the father of the deceaed, who also stated that her son-in-law Balbir Singh was working at Delhi. After the birth of the child about 4 years, after her marriage, accused started maltreating and torturing Sakina and Sakina told him as well as his wife and his son. He also stated that she had been tortured by the accused for taking more ration and that she was being tortured by not providing clothes etc. by the accused. These reasons have been given by him for the first time, which were not mentioned in the report lodged by him or stated by PW-1 Roshan Lal, brother of the deceased. He also stated that they never reported the matter to the police or Panchayat. He also stated that he does not know why Sakina committed suicide and only God knows this. He never stated that she died because of maltreatment meted out to her by the accused persons. He also stated in cross-examination that he cannot tell the date, month or the year when Sakina told about the maltreatment.

PW-3 Swarna Devi only stated that on 27.12.1993 she was going to the field with bucket of manure on her head, when Sakina Devi met her and she was carrying her son on her back and told her that she was going to the hospital as her son was ill. She also stated that Sakina was having good relations with her. In case she was having good relation with the deceased and the deceased met her prior to leaving the house, it was quite natural for her to depose regarding maltreatment to her, but she did not state anything in this regard.

PW-4 Smt. Kanta Devi has stated that Sakina Devi was her niece, who was married at Basal. She had given wool to her for knitting socks. She met her on 27.12.1993 and told her that she was going to her parents house. Even she does not state anything that the deceased made any complaint about the behaviour or maltreatment meted out to her by the respondents. The statements of other witnesses are not very material.

From the above discussion, it is clear that in the report lodged by the complainant, he did not allege about the reason for maltreatment, but when the complainant PW-2 Dagi Ram appeared in the witness box, he stated only one reason that was in regard to less ration. It was only stated by him and not by his son, who appeared in the witness box as PW-1. Both the brother and father of the deceased had admitted that no complaint was ever made to Panchayat in this regard and there is no evidence to show that even an oral complaint was made to the Panchayat in this regard. Thus, it is clear from a perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution that there is nothing on record in regard to the maltreatment prior to the commission of the suicide by the deceased and the reasons have been stated by one witness and not corroborated by the other witness. There is nothing as to what maltreatment was given to the deceased and when the complaint was made to her father and brother by the deceased and as such, vague allegations made have not been substantiated by the prosecution witnesses.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the final findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, in view of the evidence led by the prosecution and those findings are not liable to be set aside.

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.