Viney Mittal, J.
1. Appellant No. 1 Mehar Dass is the unfortunatehusband who has faced trial under Sections 306 and 201 ofthe Indian Penal Code because of the fact that his wifeShrimati Pataso died by consuming poison and committedsuicide on March 17, 1989. The remaining two appellantsPuran Mal and Shanti are parents of Mehar Dass. All thethree jointly were charged for the commission of offencespunishable under Sections 305 and 201 of the Indian PenalCode for the aforesaid suicide committed by ShrimatiPataso. An FIR was registered on March 17, 1989 at PoliceStation Pilukhera at the instance of Ramphal son of RamKaran.
2. As per the prosecution version Mehra Dassappellant, who was serving in Army was married with Patasoin February, 1982. After the marriage, deceased ShrimatiPataso lived with her husband and her parents-in-law inher matrimonial home. Even according to the case put upby the prosecution, the husband of the deceased and hisparents were satisfied with the dowry items given at thetime of marriage but subsequently they started harassingher by raising more demand of dowry. Mehar Dass came onleave from Army on March 16, 1989 and went to the house ofhis parents-in-law i.e. the parents of Shrimati Pataso tobring Pataso to his house. He asked Ramphal brother ofPataso and Shrimati Darkan mother of Pataso to send heralong with him. Accordingly, Pataso accompanied herhusband to her matrimonial home. On the next day i.e.March 17, 1989 Rajbir younger brother of Mehar Dass came tothe village of Pataso and informed that she had consumedsome poisonous tablet and was being taken to hospital atJind. Pataso died because of the consumption of theaforesaid poisonous substance.
3. The prosecution led evidence and produced PW7Ramphal son of Ram Karan, who is the real brother ofdeceased Pataso; PW8 Shrimati Darkan mother of thedeceased, PW9 Shri S.K. Shukla, Assistance ChemicalExaminer and PW10 SI Mam Chand, who was InvestigatingOfficer and other formal witnesses. After the conclusionof the prosecution evidence, learned Sessions Judge, Jindfound all the accused guilty of the commission of theoffences under Sections 306 and 201 of the Indian PenalCode and accordingly convicted them and sentenced them toundergo RI for five years each under Section 306 of theIndian Penal Code. They were further ordered to undergoRI for one year under Section 201 of the Indian PenalCode. Both the sentences were ordered to runconcurrently. The appellants have now challenged theaforesaid conviction and sentence awarded by the learnedSessions Judge, Jind through the present appeal.
4. I have heard Shri Baldev Singh, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing for the appellants and Shri RajbirSehrawat, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana andwith their assistance have gone the record of the case.Shri Baldev Singh learned Senior counselappearing for the appellant has submitted that there isno evidence on the record to show that the appellant hadever mal-treated aforesaid Pataso or had ever committedany such act, which had forced the deceased to commitsuicide. On that basis, it is submitted by the learnedcounsel that in fact there is no basis for recording thefindings that the appellants had ever abetted thecommission of the suicide by deceased Pataso. In thisregard Shri Baldev Singh has drawn my pointed attention tothe statement of PW7 Ramphal. Aforesaid Ramphal hasspecifically deposed that at the time of marriage theaccused were satisfied with the articles of dowry given bythem. It is further stated by him that later they startedharassing them and started demanding more dowry. However,no details, whatsoever, were given by aforesaid witnessRamphal. Admittedly, the marriage between the parties hadtaken place in February, 1982. It has not been shown thatfor all these seven years when the parties remainedtogether i.e. till her death on March 17, 1989, thedeceased was ever maltreated or that she had made anycomplaint in this regard to her parents or to the police.The only statement made by aforesaid witness was thatMehar Dass had come on annual leave on March 16, 1989 andhad come to their house and requested them to send hiswife with him. Upon that request made by the husband, thebrother and mother of the deceased merely requested thehusband not to harass Pataso. Infact on March 16, 1989Pataso was sent along with Mehar Dass by the brother andmother of the deceased. On March 17, 1989 Rajbir brotherof Mehra Dass appellant came to inform brother and motherof the deceased that Pataso had consumed some poisonoustablet and that she had been taken to the hospital. Tothe similar effect is the statement of Darkan (PW8) motherof the deceased. Nothing has been shown by theprosecution that the appellants had created any suchcircumstances for the deceased that she had been forced toend her life because of the aforesaid facts.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, Ifind that the prosecution has miserably failed to lead anysuch evidence which would go to prove that the appellantshave committed the offence for which they were charged.Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and theappellants re acquitted of the charges levelled againstthem.