State of H.P. vs Harjeet Singh and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 22.3.1996 delivered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dahramshala, Camp at Una, in Sessions Case No. 15/94, RBT No. 14/94, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 306, 304B & 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The admitted facts are that Smt. Achhri Devi was married to accused Harjeet Singh. Accused Krishan Chand, Inder Jeet Singh and Sharda Devi are the brothers and sister of accused Harjeet Singh. Accused Prito Devi is the mother of accused Harjeet Singh.

According to the prosecution the marriage between Achhri Devi and Harjeet Singh took place in December, 1990 and for the first few years the relations between the husband and wife remained cordial. One daughter was born out of the wedlock. Thereafter the accused persons allegedly started maltreating Achhri Devi for not bringing sufficient dowry. Demands for items of dowry and cash were made by the accused persons to the parents of the deceased. According to the prosecution due to those demands of dowry the deceased was forced to commit suicide by consuming poison on 2.7.1993.

Admittedly, the death of the deceased Achhri Devi took place within the seven years of marriage. However, the provisions of Section 304B are only attracted where the death of a woman is caused by burn or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances. Every case of death within the seven years of marriage will not attract the provisions of Sections 304B IPC or 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. To prove an offence u/s 306 IPC, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the deceased committed suicide.

In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the death of the deceased was an unnatural death. In fact the evidence led by the prosecution itself especially the evidence of PW-1 Prabhat Singh, PW-2 Hari Ram, PW-4 Satpal, PW-5 Gurbachan Singh, does not support the prosecution case. All these witnesses were the persons who first attended upon the deceased.

According to PW-1, he found a lady sitting near the edge of the road and found that the condition of the lady was critical. The lady asked him to save her. He and Thola Ram served water to the lady who informed them that she is the daughter-in-law of Swaran Singh. This witness called some villagers from nearby village Bhateda. They also sent information to the house of Swaran Singh through Hari Ram. In cross-examination, the witness states that the lady had told him that she was suffering from extreme heat.

PW-2 Hari Ram states that a young school boy came and told him that a lady is lying near the road. He went to the lady and inquired about her name. She told him that she is the daughter-in-law of Swaran Singh who may be called. Thereafter Swaran Singh was called who came to the spot.

PW-4 Satpal�s statement is also to the similar effect. According to him PW-2 Hari Ram raised an alarm that a lady is lying on the side of the road. Thereafter a number of persons went to the spot. By the time this witness reached Achhri Devi was unconscious. This witness states that they took Achhri Devi in a mini Bus to the Haroli hospital at Haroil. The doctor attended upon Acchri Devi at Haroli Hospital and declared her dead. According to this witness the Doctor opined that the deceased had died due to heat stroke. To the similar effect is the statement of PW-5 Gurbachan Singh.

Even the Investigating Officer PW-21 ASI Gian Chand admits that during the course of the investigation it was revealed that Achhri Devi was taken to the hospital. However, according to this witness he did not find any record at Haroli Hospital about her being taken there.

The statements of these witnesses referred to above clearly show that the deceased had not consumed poison. Even during the investigation of the case, no poisonous substance was found as has been stated by the Investigating Officer PW-21.

The version of the witnesses who reached immediately on the spot is that the deceased told him that she is the daughter-in-law of Swaran Singh and he may be called for. If she had consumed poison to commit suicide she would have asked for her father-in-law. She would have given the name of her parents.

The prosecution has miserably failed to show that the deceased died an unnatural death much less that she committed suicide. The only circumstance which can be stated to be against the accused is that the deceased was cremated on the same day. According to the witnesses, they saw the deceased in an injured condition at about 12 noon. She was immediately taken to the hospital at Haroli which is nearby and was declared dead by 1.00 p.m. The death took place in the month of July which is the hottest month of the year. Nobody suspected any foul play in the death of the deceased. Thus there was nothing unnatural in the deceased being cremated on the same day.

In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged.