State of H.P. vs Roop Chand and Another

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 19.12.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP in Sessions Case No. 42-G/VII/1999 thereby acquitting the Respondents/accused for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC in reference to FIR No. 197 dated 12.10.1997

The prosecution case is that an information/ complaint dated 12.10.1997 was received by the police of Police station, Jawalamukhi that Sundesh Kumari, victim deceased had consumed poison due to mis-behaviour and ill treatment meted out by the accused/Respondents being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim-deceased. An FIR was lodged and investigation was made and the accused/Respondents were charged for the aforesaid offence.

On the information, ASI Gurdas Ram went to the hospital along with police constables and the statement of Sundesh Kumari, victim-deceased, was recorded u/s 154 Cr.PC to the effect that she was married to Amarjeet Singh on 18.9.1996, who was working in Jogindernagar as Scooter mechanic and was at home since 10.10.1997. Two or three months of the marriage, her mother in law Kanta Devi and father in law Roop Chand started harassing her by saying that they had much work of agriculture and started taunting her that she was not rising up early and how the work of agriculture would be done and they were calling bad names to her and when she was ready on that day to go with her husband to Joginder Nagar, her father in law and mother in law did not allow her to go, therefore, she took two tablets of poison. When her condition deteriorated, she herself divulged this fact to both the accused i.e. her father-in-law and mother in law, that she has consumed poison tablets. However she was taken to the hospital, where her statement was recorded.

In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, whereas, to their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused/Respondents denied the prosecution case and had shown their innocence.

As stated by the victim-deceased in her statement (Ext PF) that on 11.10.1997, she was ready to go with her husband to Joginder nagar, however, she was abused and was restrained to go along with him. Being aggrieved by the perpetual maltreatment and mis-behaviour given by the father in law and mother in law, she had consumed poisonous tablets and thereafter, she informed both the accused/Respondents. Statement Ext (PF) was recorded on 12.10.1997 at 2.25 PM.

(PW-1) Dr. Indu Bala conducted the postmortem examination and opined that the death of the victim was caused due to cardio respiratory failure. On the basis of Chemical examiner report (Ext PD), it was found that the victim-deceased had consumed poisonous material. (PW-2) HC Bhup Singh, took out the viscera in sealed parcel and was sent to FSL Junga for chemical test. (PW-3) Nanak Chand constable had handed over three sealed parcels along with the documents by HC Bhup Singh for depositing the same to FSL Junga along with road certificate. (PW-4) Ranjit Singh had stated that in his presence police took into possession aluminum phosphate tablets from the house of accused. (PW-5) Ramesh Chand had stated that on 12.10.1997 Ruka (Ex PF) was handed over to him by ASI Gurdas Ram in the hospital. (PW-6) Dy. S.P. Nag Chand had stated that on 12.10.1997 a telephonic message was received from PS Jawala ji at about 1.30 or 2 p.m. that one married women had consumed poison. On this, he went to the hospital at Jawalamukhi. Investigating officer has moved an application to the doctor, on which doctor gave opinion that the victim-deceased was in a position to make statement. Therefore, in his presence and in the presence of lady doctor and ASI Guard as Ram, recorded the statement of Sundesh Kumari victim-deceased, which was signed by PW-6. However, PW-6 has denied to the effect whether about 200 persons of the village of the girl went to the house of the accused on 13.10.1997 and got back the dowry articles forcibly. He further denied that 100 or 150 persons from the village of the girl were present in the hospital on 12.10.1997. Self stated that there were 5 or 7 persons present in the hospital from the village of the girl.

(PW-7) ASI Gurdas Ram had received telephonic information on 12.10.1997 at 11.45 am to the effect that Sundesh Kumari, victim-deceased was admitted for treatment in poisoning case. Therefore, he along with constable went to the hospital and moved application to the doctor (Ex PH) for obtaining doctor''s opinion and thereafter statement of victim was recorded. PW-7 also reached on the spot, prepared the site plan, searched the residential room of the victim from where aluminum phosphate was recovered. However, at 9.30 PM, PW-7 came to know that the victim deceased had died in the hospital. As stated by PW-7 in cross examination that the victim was brought to the hospital by the accused persons and other relatives. (PW-8) Dr. Savita Ran, Medical officer, after examining the victim-deceased noticed no external injury on her person as she was not unconscious when she brought to the hospital. (PW-9) Hazara Singh, the elder brother of the victim-deceased has stated that accused persons were torturing and maltreating the victim-deceased and were also taunting her for bringing less dowry. PW-9 has also stated that Amarjeet Singh/ ( husband of victim-deceased) also came once or twice asking for money from them, however no money was paid to him. PW-9 had further stated that 2 or 3 days prior to her death, they went to the house of the accused and accused called bad names to his sister. However, PW-9 requested the accused to allow them to take the victim-deceased, but husband Amar jeet had refused. On 12.10.1997, Amarjeet Singh and his sister came to the house of PW-9 at about 2.30 PM and told that victim-deceased was in the hospital and was sick. As such, PW-9 along with his wife, went to CHC, Jawalamukhi.

PW-9 had further stated that 15 or 20 persons accompanied him, went to the house of the accused and brought back the dowry articles of her sister. PW-9 had further stated that he told the police that the accused tortured her sister, however, such statement was not recorded by the police. PW-9 in his Endeavour to support the prosecution case, has not narrated any definite instance of beating, maltreatment or demand of dowry.

(PW-10), Birbal, the father of the victim-deceased had stated that she was making complaint that her father in law and mother in law were torturing her for bringing less dowry and taunting her for the supply of less dowry and also for not working properly. However, PW-10 has not made any complaint to any person, Pradhan, Gram Panchayat or to the police. (PW-11) Govind Ram had conducted the investigation partly.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that the victim-deceased Sundesh Kumari had died due to cardio respiratory failure consequent upon her consumption of poisonous tablets. Neither any independent witness of the locality was examined nor anybody had come forward to say that victim-deceased was being maltreated or any definite demand of dowry was made. None of the prosecution witnesses has made any complaint to any public, Gram Panchayat or police. The general allegations of abusing and maltreating the victim-deceased, which are referred in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, only were mentioned.

On the scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accused/Respondents have not made any demand of dowry and by their specific conduct of cruelty and no situation was created which might have induced the victim-deceased to commit suicide.

In our considered view also, nothing is emanating from the testimony of prosecution witnesses that any demand of dowry was made by the accused/Respondents. No specific instance of demand of dowry was highlighted. No specific complaint of cruelty or maltreatment was mentioned. In these circumstances, an offence under Sections 498A as well as 306 of IPC is not made out against the accused/Respondents, as the victim-deceased had consumed poisonous tablets only being perturbed by the unusual behaviour of the accused/Respondent. Mis-behaviour only cannot construe the ingredient of cruelty and cannot be treated a material which may be termed as abetment for suicide. In our considered view, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

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