State of H.P. vs Sanjeev Sharma and Others

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 1.1.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 28 of 2001 thereby acquitting the respondents/accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, in reference to FIR No. 292 dated 12.12.1998, Police Station, Dharamshala.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Suman daughter of Krishna Devi (PW-7), sister of Sanjay Sharma (PW-2) and Neelam Sharma (PW-4) was married to Sanjeev/accused, brother and son of Mamta and Kamlesh Kumari accused respectively. Marriage was solemnized on 4.12.1996. For initial period of 8-9 months, both lived comfortably. However, since July, 1997, victim went to her brother Sanjay Sharma (PW-2) at Delhi where (PW-2) was working in a private company. Accused subsequently also went to Delhi and lived there for about 10 months. Sanjeev also started working in a private company. One child was born from the wedlock of victim and the accused, who unfortunately expired after 10-12 days after her birth. Thereafter, Sanjeev accused came to his native place along with the victim. On 10.12.1998, Sanjay Sharma (PW-2) was intimated by Neelam Sharma (PW-4), sister of victim about the death of victim. On getting such information both (PW-2) and (PW-3) Purshotam Dutt, husband of (PW-4) went to the village and intimated to the police. Dead body of the victim was sent for post-mortem examination. On postmortem examination by (PW14) Dr. Balbir, the cause of death of victim was found by asphyxia due to aspiration of gastric contents. On investigation, the accused were charged for the offences under Sections 498-A read with Section 304-B of IPC. During the course of investigation, two letters Exts PB to PD were seized which were produced by (PW-3) and (PW-4).

In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 15 prosecution witnesses, whereas, one defence witness was adduced on behalf of accused/respondents in addition to denial by them.

PW-1 Dr. Dev Raj, a private medical practitioner was taken on 10.12.1998 to his house by accused Sanjeev, when found Suman unwell due to vomiting. In presence of (PW-5) Raj Kapoor, diary of victim (Ex PE) under Memo Ex PH was taken into possession by the police and Surinder Kumar (PW-6) witnessed Memo Ex PL, under which letters Exts PB to Ext PD were produced by Purshotam Dutt. (PW-12) Vinod Kumar, photographer took photographs Ext P-3 and Ex P-4. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted vide post mortem report Ex PV by Dr. Balbir (PW-14), who has also handed over the belongings of the deceased in a sealed parcel to the police along with sealed parcels of viscera and blood of deceased. The case was investigated by ASI Amar Singh and SHO Inspector Kishan Chand (PW-15). PW-13 H.M. Saxena handwritings expert opined letters Ext PB to Ext PD to be written by the same person, who had written the diary Ext PE.

On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, we notice that Sanjay Kumar (PW-2) lodged FIR Ext PA on 12.12.1998 at 8.00 PM. As per the testimony of PW-2, he had been receiving telephones of his sister Neelam from Hamirpur that victim was being ill-treated by her mother in law. We also notice that it is the husband of the deceased who brought the victim to the private practitioner, who provided treatment to the victim and the husband of the victim has also intimated about the death of the victim to the relatives. Prosecution mainly relied upon the contents of two letters indicated as Exts PB to PD. However, while going through the contents of these letters, it appears that these are formal letters describing family affairs and in none of the letters any demand of dowry or cruelty has been described by the victim. It appears that Sanjeev, husband of the victim, when went Delhi was unemployed and subsequently got private job there. Probably, such plight of her was highlighted in the letter Ext PB by the deceased who hoped that bright days are ahead after getting job by her husband. We also notice that no report or information of any kind of harassment, torture or demand of dowry was ever made to any of the villagers, Gram Panchayat or the police or any independent person of the locality.

Nothing is emanating from the testimony of Purshotam Dutt (PW-3) about the cause of death, so much so, the relatives of the deceased were not aware that how victim Suma had died. Had Suman/victim been subjected to cruelty or harassment regarding demand of dowry, Purshotam Dutt (PW-3) and his wife Neelam (PW-4) would have been aware about it and consequently could have brought such aspect to the notice of the police. Letters Exts PB to PD do not contain the allegations of torture or cruelty or demand of dowry. Even PW-4 also did not divulge harassment or ill treatment meted to the deceased by the accused. Statement of PW-4 was recorded first time on 20.12.1998. About demand of television and fridge, she has not stated to police in her statement. PW-4 also admitted that her sister was depressed due to financial constraints.

(PW-7) Krishan Devi, mother of the deceased had also indicated that she was never intimated either by any letter or orally about the torture or for demand of fridge or ornaments. However, PW-7 has conceded that victim was depressed due to the death of her child.

On appraisal of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, it appears that the victim/deceased has never divulged about harassment, torture or ill treatment on account of demand of dowry. As such, it could not be said that victim has consumed insecticide at the instigation of the accused due to her being treated with cruelty in reference to demand of dowry. None of the independent witnesses have also supported the prosecution case regarding cruelty or demand of dowry.

Therefore, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and also failed to bring home to the guilt. In our considered view, we find no scope for interference in the impugned judgment. Thus, the criminal appeal, being void of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

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