State of H.P. vs Manohar Lal

R.B. Misra, J.—The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 6.6.1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, HP, in Sessions case No. 33/1995, thereby acquitting the respondent / accused for the offences under Sections 306 and 498A of IPC.

The prosecution case is that the accused/respondent Manohar Lal was married with Smt. Avinash Sharma and she was always suspecting Manohar Lal that he was having some illicit relations with some other lady. On 9.12.1994, Avinash Sharma slept in the room of her quarter with her son master Mohit alias Happy. During the course of that night, she committed suicide by setting herself ablazed allegedly being aggrieved by extra marital relation of her husband with some other lady. However, on an investigation, accused was charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed for session trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 27 prosecution witnesses. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of defence.

Dr, J.S. Kanwar (PW-23) and Dr. Arun Sharma (PW-24) had examined the dead body of Avinash Sharma and after investigation, they could not arrive at the definite opinion about the cause of death of deceased as no fracture or dislocation of any bone, joint etc. were noticed by them on the person of the deceased. Only cause of death was said to be shock and asphyxia in view of the opinion of Dr. R.S. Dadhwal. Out of all the prosecution witnesses, none has categorically stated except Vinod Kumar, PW-19, brother of the deceased, that accused/respondent was giving beatings or maltreating the victim-deceased. PW-19, Vinod Kumar, brother of the deceased, on the basis of one post card letter, purported to have been written by the deceased to Vinod Kumar Ext P-25, specifically written in Gurmukhi script, indicated that some times, the victim-deceased was ill treated. However, the contents of the letter were not so worded, whereby the victim-deceased could have committed suicide. Except PW-19, none of the prosecution witnesses has indicated about the cruelty, more specifically the cruelty, ill treatment or beating was made closely or prior to the death of victim-deceased. Most important witness is Master Mohit (PW-3), son of the deceased, who has stated that he was sleeping with his mother (victim-deceased) on the fateful night. His father, accused/respondent never maltreated or gave beatings to his mother and PW-3 has very categorically stated that his mother was always persuaded his father for bringing more and more money and his mother (victim-deceased) was suffering from blood pressure and used to remain always ill.

From the scrutiny of the testimony of PW-3, nothing is revealed that the accused/respondent was giving maltreatment which could have been the cause of committing suicide by the victim-accused by setting herself ablaze.

We have gone through the contents of the impugned judgment, prosecution witnesses and materials on record very carefully and we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has failed to bring home guilt to the accused and the accused/respondent cannot be held guilty of cause of death of victim-deceased. The criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

The bail bonds, furnished by the accused/ respondent, are discharged.