State of H.P. vs Rattani Devi

Deepak Gupta, J.

1 This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 4.2.1999, delivered by learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1998, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2 The admitted facts are that the deceased Soma Devi was married to Raj Kumar, son of the accused about 6 years prior to the incident. It is not disputed that on 25.9.1996, the deceased died by consuming Aluminum Phosphide. According to the prosecution, the accused treated the deceased with cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC and abetted her to commit suicide. After the deceased died due to committing suicide, an F.I.R. was lodged at the instance of PW-2 Parmi Devi, mother of the deceased. The statement of Parmi Dev was recorded by the police u/s 154 Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext.PW-2/A). According to the complainant, the accused was not providing sufficient food and clothing to the deceased and used to taunt the deceased that she is incapable of bearing a child and she should get out of the matrimonial home. The accused also used to threaten the deceased that she would get her son remarried. On 25.9.1996, while she was washing her clothes in a Khad, she was informed by one Shri Birbal that her daughter(the deceased) had died in the matrimonial home. She rushed to the house of the accused and learnt that in the morning the accused had asked the deceased to clean the house and utensils. The deceased had refused to clean the utensils which had been used by her mother-in-law and thereupon a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased and thereafter the deceased consumed poison.

On the basis of this report, F.I.R. was lodged and investigation was done. After completion of investigation, the accused was challaned with having committed the offences detailed hereinabove. The learned trial court after trial, has acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal.

We need not go into the detailed evidence because some facts are admitted by both the sides. The marriage between the deceased and Raj Kumar is admitted. It is also not denied that the deceased committed suicide. The admitted fact is that the deceased could not bear a child. The defence of the accused is that she used to work as a Class-IV employee in Balwari Centre and one Smt. Sheela was a teacher in the said Centre. Said Smt. Sheela contested election to the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat against one Smt. Madhuri Chandel PW-5. The accused supported and voted for Smt. Sheela and, therefore, Smt. Madhuri Chandel and her husband(PW-4) bore animosity towards her and instigated PW-2 Parmi Devi to file a false report.

The deceased had been married to Raj Kumar about 6 years prior to the suicide. The accused had one other son, namely, Dev Raj who had two sons. The accused owned a double storey house. The two rooms on the ground floor were in occupation of her son Dev Raj and his family. The accused, the deceased and her husband Raj Kumar were residing in the upper storey having two rooms. About 7-8 months prior to the occurrence which took place on 25.9.1996, the deceased and her husband separated from the accused and started living in one of the two rooms on the upper storey. The other room was being occupied by the accused. However, the approach to this room on the upper storey was through a staircase which first went into the room of the accused and then there was opening to the room of the deceased and her husband Raj Kumar. Therefore, the deceased and the accused had to cross the room of the accused every time they went in or out of their room. It is also not denied that the relations between the deceased and her mother-in-law were not cordial and at many times quarrel would take place between them.

The mother PW-2 Parmi Devi while appearing in Court gave totally a different version vis-�-vis her original version in her statement Ext.PW-2/A. Whereas in the original statement she had only complained against the accused, while appearing in Court she made allegations against the husband of the deceased Raj Kumar and his brother Dev Raj as well as wife of Dev Raj. In the original complaint Ext.PW-2/A there was no allegation that the deceased was being beaten or that there was any demand of dowry. However, while appearing in Court she stated that the accused, the husband of the deceased and other relatives had been beating the deceased and also harassing her for bringing less dowry. Thus, there is obviously a vast improvement in the statement in Court which makes her version very unreliable. She was confronted with the statement Ext.PW-2/A and could not give any plausible explanation as to why she had not mentioned these facts while lodging the report. The only explanation given is that she had forgotten to make such allegation since she was disturbed with the death of the deceased. This version cannot be believed.

PW-3, maternal uncle of the deceased has gone even further and stated that the deceased was murdered and did not commit suicide. This is not the prosecution case itself and no reliance can be placed on the statement of this witness.

As far as PW-4 is concerned, according to him the quarrels between the accused and the deceased were such that normally take place in any joint family between the mother-in-law and the daughter-in-law. According to him on 25.9.1996 at 8.00 a.m. he was present in his house and the deceased came to their house to meet his wife. He told the deceased that his wife had gone to another house located nearby and then the deceased told him that the accused had given beatings to her. He then accompanied the deceased to her house. 2-3 persons were already sitting there. He advised the accused and the deceased not to quarrel at least till the evening and that he would come in the evening to patch up the difference between them. Half an hour later he was informed by Ajit Singh that the deceased had died and then the police was called. He stated that he had not disclosed the names of the persons who were sitting when he reached the house of the deceased but named them in Court. He also admitted that neither he nor his wife could produce any written complaint made by the deceased to them. He stated that though the deceased used to bring such complaints in writing, they were returned to her on the ground that these disputes normally take place in a family.

PW-5, Smt. Madhuri Chandel, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, supported the prosecution. She stated that on 25.9.1996 when she returned from her old house her daughter Indubala met her and told her that the deceased had come to their house in her absence and complained that the accused had beaten her and the accused was not permitting the deceased to go through her room. Thereafter her husband had gone with the deceased to get the matter settled. After some time the accused came to her house. She appeared to be perplexed. She told the witness that the deceased was crying and she should accompany her to her house. When she went there she found that the deceased had died and then the matter was reported to the police. In cross-examination, she stated that the deceased never made any complaint in writing to her nor she sent any complaint on her behalf to the police or any other authority.

On the basis of the evidence, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that there is no merit in the prosecution case. According to PW-2 Parmi Devi when the accused had given beatings to the deceased, the matter was reported to the Police Station Bhoranj. However, PW-10 S.I. Dilshad Mohammad stated that no such complaint was ever made in the Police Station. PW-3, Dile Ram maternal uncle of the deceased is also the President of Gram Panchayat. He is an educated person but never lodged a complaint about the harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused and other relatives. Whereas PW-4 stated that the deceased who was educated had made written complaints, according to his wife PW-5 no such complaints were ever made in writing. In the original complaint the only allegation was that when the deceased refused to clean the utensils used by the accused, a quarrel took place. This would not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. Since the deceased could not bear a child, the possibility of her having committed suicide on account of depression cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, the learned trial court was fully justified in acquitting the accused. We see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.