State of H.P. vs Jagarnath, Ashok Kumar and Sheela 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 Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 28.6.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.4.1998, at about 7.00 P.M., SHO Police Station Barsar, alongwith other officials had gone to hospital in connection with verification of rapat No. 18 where Tara Chand, complainant and father of deceased Nishu Bala, made a statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C., which was recorded by him. He alleged that he had married his daughter Nishu Bala on 9.5.1997 with respondent Jagarnath. She was living in her in-laws house in village Balam and respondent was serving in ITBP. It was alleged that when his daughter came back to the house, she used to tell him that mother-in-law Sheela Devi, respondents Jagarnath and Devar Ashok Kumar, used to maltreat her for bringing insufficient dowry. They were not provided her food and clothing also. When she purchased articles from market, she was given beatings. Her husband had come back in October, 1997, on vacation and at that time also, he had given beatings to her as to why she had purchased toffees from the market. She was being troubled for bringing insufficient dowry and that she was not doing house hold work. Today, he received a telephonic information that his daughter was ill and admitted in Barsar hospital and he went there and found that in the morning she had been maltreated by her husband and was also given beatings and she has taken some poisonous substance.

On this report, a case was registered by the police and after investigation, police filed the challan before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barsar, District Hamirpur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who transferred the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Hamirpur, 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 evidence led by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to substantiate its case. The statements of the father of the deceased and other relatives need to be appreciated carefully as to whether they prove the guilt of the respondents.

Complainant Tara Chand, father of the deceased, has been examined as PW-5, who stated that the marriage was performed on 19.5.1997. He had given the dowry as per his capacity. After ten days of the marriage when his daughter returned to the home, she started complaining of maltreatment and bringing less dowry. He was also asked by respondent Jagarnath about the giving of insufficient dowry and he assured him that he will provide the same as and when he is financially sound. Thereafter, her husband left and mother-in-law and Devar continued harassing her for dowry. The deceased came to him for money and he gave Rs. 5000/-after borrowing it from another person. He stated that other accused also used to beat his daughter. Then he received information that his daughter was serious and he went to hospital and lodged the report.

In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not stated to the police in his statement that his daughter had complained about the maltreatment ten days after marriage. He also did not state to the police that accused Jagarnath had complained him about the insufficient dowry or that he will give the money when he is financially sound. He also did not tell the police about borrowing of Rs. 5000/-to the deceased. This clearly shows that improvements were made by him in his statement made in Court. He also stated that he had borrowed Rs. 5000/- from Lala Subhash Chand after 10-12 days of the marriage. He also admitted that he never made any complaint to any person about the harassment. He also admitted that after 4/5 months of the marriage, the accused had taken the deceased to Kullu Manali on a trip, meaning thereby it suggests of cordial relations. He stated that he was told about the beatings by the villagers, but none has been named by him.

PW-6 Naresh Kumar, brother of the deceased, has also stated that the respondents used to maltreat his sister and beat her for bringing insufficient dowry. He also stated that when respondent Jagarnath came on leave, he used to beat her on petty matters and used to force her to bring money from their house. He learnt about the death of the deceased and noticed injuries on the body of the deceased. He stated that money as demanded was paid by his father by taking it from one Lala Anant Ram, thought his father as PW-5 has stated that it was borrowed from one Lala Subhash Chand. He also does not remember the month in which it was paid. He also stated that his sister and her husband came one or twice and stayed in their house for one or two days. He denied his knowledge in case his sister used to press for going with the accused Jagarnath and did not want to stay in the village.

PW-10 Veena Kumari is the sister of the deceased, who has stated that his sister came to their house 10-12 days of the marriage and told them that her husband used to gather his family members inside a room and after taking liquor, he used to ask her sister to dance and on her refusal he used to beat her. This is a new version introduced by this witness, about which the other witnesses mentioned above, have not stated anything. She also stated that the mother-in-law used to taunt her sister for bringing less dowry and used to torture her. She also stated that Fridge was demanded prior to the death, which is not the case of any of the witnesses referred to above. She was confronted with her police statement wherein she had not mentioned that the accused had used to take her in a room and her husband used to beat her and this improvement was made by her in the statement made in Court. About the demand of Rs. 5000/-, she stated that she has not told the police, though she was aware of it.

The next witness examined in this regard is PW-7 Prakash Chand, a villager, but he stated that he went to the village of the deceased and had called her to the house of one Suharu Ram, but she refused to take tea, as she would be harassed. When he enquired, he was told that she was being harassed by her husband, mother-in-law and Devar for bringing less dowry and they used to beat her. This is a vague statement made by her and does not refer to any month, date or the time or in whose presence, this was told to him. No relative of the deceased as stated in this regard that they were ever informed by this witness about the harassment. The learned trial Court has referred to his abnormal behaviour in not proving the fact of harassment, if any, to the notice of the family of the deceased at any time. Therefore, his statement was not relied upon by the learned trial Court.

Apart from the above, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. H.K. Attri, who conducted the postmortem and gave the report Ext. PW1/C, in which he did observe some injuries, but he admitted that these are possible by fall and are superficial in nature. However, he had not mentioned about the duration of the injuries in the postmortem report. The mere fact that there were superficial injuries on the person of the deceased as noticed by the Medical Officer, is not sufficient to prove that these were caused by any of the accused persons or by which of the accused persons. They are suggestive of some dispute, which may have taken place, but this evidence is not sufficient to establish that this was the immediate cause of provocation by any of the accused persons for the deceased to commit suicide. On the basis of the evidence, the view taken by the learned trial Court that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be said 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.