State of H.P. vs Ramesh Kumar and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—State has filed the present appeal, assailing the judgment of acquittal, dated 30th July, 1999, delivered by the Sessions Court, whereby respondents have been acquitted of charge, u/s 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

Deceased Raj Kumari was married to respondent Ramesh Kumar, some time in the year 1989. Respondent Bal Krishan is the father, respondent Ram Lali, the mother and Paras Ram, the Mama (mother''s brother) of respondent Ramesh Kumar. On the day of the marriage, when articles of dowry were displayed at the bride''s place, respondents allegedly expressed displeasure over the father of the bride, not giving a coloured television and a motorcycle in dowry. This led to a quarrel and consequential bitterness of relations. Father of deceased, namely PW-2 Ram Kishore, arranged a black & white television. Bitterness generated at the time of marriage did not vanish. Respondents allegedly started torturing and ill-treating the deceased.She gave birth to a female child.

On 16th July, 1993, Raj Kumari consumed insecticide, branded as ''Nuvan''. Respondent Ramesh Kumar was in his shop, adjacent to the residential portion, at that time. Other respondents were not there. Respondent Ramesh Kumar came to know about the consumption of poison by the deceased, only when he heard the child crying and went to the residential portion. He saw the deceased lying unconscious. He immediately rushed her to Deen Dayal Hospital. Doctor at the hospital, namely PW-8 Manjula Gupta, informed the police. PW-7 ASI Naresh Kumar went to the hospital. Raj Kumari died the same day. Postmortem examination of her dead body was conducted on 20th July, 1993, when her parents arrived from Uttar Pradesh.

Father of the deceased made statement Ext. PW2/B to PW-10 Kuldeep Singh, SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Shimla, in which he got recorded that demand for a coloured television and a motorcycle was made on the day of the marriage and that when he could not meet the demand, a quarrel took place, which delayed the departure of "Doli" by a day and that he had to arrange a black & white television, to pacify the respondents. He also got recorded that on account of his inability to meet the demand, deceased was subjected to torture and even was not allowed to visit him and that only once or twice she visited him after the marriage and complained about the torture and harassment at the hands of respondents.

Postmortem examination and analysis of viscera, by the Chemical Examiner, indicated that cause of death was poisoning by organo-phosphorous. On completion of investigation, report u/s 173 Cr. P.C. alongwith the relevant papers was filed in the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, who after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr. P.C, committed the case to the Sessions Court, which Court charged the respondents with offence, u/s 306, read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty.

Prosecution examined 11 witnesses, including father of the deceased, namely PW-2 Ram Kishore, a brother of deceased, namely PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, a cousin of the father of deceased, namely PW-4 Audhia Parsad and one Durgasaran Gupt (PW9).

Respondents took the plea that they never demanded coloured television or motorcycle, though they did admit that a quarrel had taken place at the time of marriage, which resulted in bitterness and acrimony between the parties. They denied that the deceased was tortured by them. Respondent Ramesh Kumar stated that the deceased used to suspect his fidelity and that might be the reason of her consuming poison. Trial Court acquitted the respondents, holding that prosecution case was not proved, beyond reasonable doubt.

We have heard learned Senior Additional Advocate General as also the learned Counsel, representing the respondents, and gone through the record.

Evidence adduced by the prosecution about the demand for a coloured television and a motorcycle at the time of marriage, is quite shaky. In the Statement, u/s 154 Cr. P.C., Ext. PW2/B, though it is mentioned that a coloured television and a motorcycle had been demanded by the respondents, yet while in the witness box, PW-2 Ram Kishore, the father of the deceased, who made statement Ext. PW2/B, stated that Mama of respondent Ramesh Kumar, namely respondent Paras Ram, demanded a coloured television in place of a black & white television or a motorcycle, when the dowry articles were displayed at the time of marriage. An independent witness examined by the prosecution, with regard to this allegation, namely PW-9 Durgasaran Gupt, was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined, with the leave of the Court. In the cross-examination, he stated that quarrel had taken place between the relatives of the bride on one side and the relatives of the bridegroom on the other, with regard to the demand for motorcycle and coloured television, but according to him, this had taken place on the day when the bride was to depart from her parents'' house with the respondents and members of marriage party. However, according to the father of the deceased, namely PW-2 Ram Kishore and a brother of the deceased, namely PW-3 Ramesh Kumar, such quarrel had taken place a day before the departure of the bride, as according to them, because of quarrel, departure had been delayed by a day.

Not only that the evidence with regard to the allegation of demand for dowry on the day of marriage is contradictory, as demonstrated hereinabove, but also there is no specific evidence regarding the alleged torture of the deceased, on account of non-fulfillment of the alleged demand for dowry. In the statement, u/s 154 Cr. P.C., Ext. PW2/B, PW-2 Ram Kishore got recorded that the deceased used to be taunted and beaten up by the respondents and that she visited his place only thrice after the marriage and every time she was accompanied by respondent Ramesh Kumar, because of which she could never have any talk with him or other members of his family, in private. However, when in the witness box, he did not say that the deceased ever complained that she was beaten up or taunted, on account of alleged demand for dowry. He simply stated that deceased used to be tortured by the respondents. He did not give description of the alleged torture. Further, when in the witness box, he stated that deceased once visited him all alone and stayed at his place for four months. This statement is contrary to the reference in Ext. PW2/B, that deceased visited him only thrice and every time she was accompanied by respondent Ramesh Kumar, because of which she could not narrate her tale of woes. He was duly confronted with the relevant portion of Ext. PW2/B, which is marked A to A.

There was no sign of physical torture on the dead body, which fact suggests that she had not been subjected to any physical torture around the time, when she committed suicide. Respondent Ramesh Kumar himself, on noticing that she was lying unconscious in the residential portion of the same structure, in which he has a shop, carried her to Deen Dayal Hospital, without loss of time. This conduct of his also weakens the allegation that he abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased.

For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed.