State of H.P. vs Sanjeev Kumar, Ram Asri and Bandna

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, Una, dated 25.6.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 498-A, 306/34 I.P.C.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 24.8.2001 at 6.00 P.M., statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C. was made by PW-2 Kamal Kumar, brother of deceased Sonia. He alleged in the statement that Sonia was married on 22.3.1999 with Sanjeev Kumar, respondent, who was living at Ludhiana in a rented accommodation. His sister was living there alongwith her husband after marriage and the respondent used to maltreat her and give her beatings under the influence of liquor. Last year, when he brought his sister Sonia to the village, she told him that her husband, respondent No. 1, mother-in-law and sister-in-law, respondents No. 2 and 3 maltreated her and taunted her and gave her beatings. He has taken his sister to Ludhiana and from there in March, 2001, brought his sister to village Charoli. Sanjeev''s mother and aunt came to their house and assured that Sonia will not be given beatings and she was sent to village Charoli. Respondent Sanjeev Kumar used to ask the deceased to bring money from her in-laws and at times her mother had give Rs. 1000/-, Rs. 500/-and Rs. 100/-. It was also alleged that the mother-in-law of the deceased used to proclaim that they will perform the second marriage of Sanjeev, since she was black coloured and was not doing the house hold work. Two days ago, he had gone to bring his sister on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, but she was not sent by respondents No. 1 and 2 and she thereafter took some poisonous substance because of the maltreatment meted out to her.

The Police Officer had come to the hospital where the deceased was admitted after her death and recorded the statement. On this statement, a case was registered by the police and after investigation, police filed the challan before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (II), Una, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who assigned the case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 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 to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, whose statements need to be carefully appreciated to arrive at any conclusion.

PW-2 Kamal Kumar, brother of the deceased and complainant, has reiterated that the marriage in between the deceased and respondent No. 1 was performed on 22.3.1999 at Ludhiana and then the accused shifted in the year 2000 to their native place at Charoli. He stated that there used to be misunderstanding between the deceased and her husband due to unemployment of the accused at Ludhiana and, therefore, they shifted to their village. He and his mother used to provide some money to the accused when he was living at Ludhiana, though the accused did not ask for the same directly from them. At times they gave monthly rent of Rs. 1700/-or so and at other times amounts in small denominations were given. His sister had disclosed to him that the accused used to quarrel after consuming liquor. He was specific that the deceased never disclosed to him qua the maltreatment by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. He was declared as hostile and was subjected to detailed cross-examination by the learned P.P. for the State. He also admitted the suggestion that the daughters of deceased are still living with the accused persons, who are looking after them and due to this reason and welfare of the children, he has not supported his earlier statement.

PW-3 Pawanjit is the father of the deceased, who stated that the deceased lived at Ludhiana after marriage with Sanjeev and then they shifted to village Charoli. During her stay at Ludhiana, his daughter used to tell him that the accused after taking liquor beat her up. On many occasions he gave money to his daughter since accused Sanjeev was not able to provide even the bare necessities of life. Even he paid the rent to the landlords. He did not state the month, date or the complaint made to him by the deceased and at which place. He has stated that he used to pay also money to the deceased, but the complainant, brother of the deceased, has stated that he and his mother used to pay the money to the respondent. He also stated about the visit of the complainant to the house of the deceased at village on the evening of Raksha Bandhan when she was not sent with him. He also stated that once Kamal had visited the house of the accused in the year 2000 and the deceased told him that she was maltreated by the accused persons on account of her not doing any domestic work, whereas she was good at domestic work. About this reason of maltreatment, the complainant has not specifically stated that a ground for the marital discord. He stated that accused Ram Asri alongwith her sisters visited them at Ludhiana and gave assurance that she would not be maltreated in future, but when this happened and how much prior to the death of the deceased, had not been stated by him. He also stated that his son was not allowed to bring the deceased to his house on account of Raksha Bandhan. He also stated that the respondents used to taunt his daughter because of dark complexion and that they would solemnize the second marriage of accused Sanjeev. He did not state as and when this was told to him by the deceased and at what time or how many months prior to the death and the evidence led is vague in nature and not corroborative.

PW-4 Jasbir Kaur has stated that her sister Mohinder Kaur alias Bhollan had arranged for the marriage in between the parties. No dowry was provided at that time. The accused also kept the deceased nicely for six months and then when she became pregnant, he used to say that medical expenses were to be borne by her parents. She stated that the accused started taking liquor in excess quantity and started making demands of cash through the deceased. The deceased''s mother also paid the rent of the house of accused Sanjeev, but the amount, month or the period was not mentioned by her or stated by her about this fact. She stated that thereafter the deceased was taken to the village. She also informed the Pradhan about this, who advised her to wait for complaint and the matter would be settled. She further stated that once at Ludhiana the deceased while staying there, came to her house and told her that mother-in-law and sister-in-law used to taunt her for arranging another marriage of accused Sanjeev, as she was of black complexion. She did not state as to when this was told to her by the deceased and how many months or years back this was so stated. She also does not state that she told these facts to the family members of the deceased at any time.

PW-1 Dr. Umesh Gautam, Medical Officer, has proved the MLC and he opined that there was history of consumption of celphos tablets about three hours back and the patient was semi-conscious and he issued MLC Ext. PW1/B in this regard. The postmortem on the body was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Vipan Chander Sharma and he also observed that the cause of death was consumption of Aluminum Phosphide Poison. He issued postmortem report Ext. PW11/A.

The prosecution also examined PW-12 Gurdev Singh, Pradhan of the Panchayat at Ludhiana and he stated that the accused used to quarrel and fight with the deceased, but he did not give any reason or that it was under the influence of liquor or due to unemployment of the accused. He simply stated that he advised the accused not to indulge in such activities, but he did not stop and then he shifted to his native village. He did not mention any date, month or year when this was brought to his notice and by whom.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the evidence led by the prosecution is general in nature and not specific and all the witnesses do not corroborate the statements of one and another on all the material particulars. The cause of marital discord appears to be the unemployment of the husband of the deceased being unable to bear the expenses at Ludhiana. No other specific cause has been brought on record for the marital discord. There is no specific evidence on record to prove the maltreatment on any particular ground or immediate provocation for the deceased to commit suicide or the cruelty meted out to her sometime prior to her death, which compelled her to take this drastic step leading to her death. The view taken by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence leading to the acquittal of the respondents cannot be said to be 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.