Surjit Singh, J.
1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 9.6.1994 of learned Sessions Court Hamirpur, whereby respondent Harbans Lal husband, Dhani Ram and Karam Chand brothers of the husband and Bohri Devi mother-in-law of deceased Urmila Devi, who were tried for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.
2. Case of the prosecution may be summed up thus. Deceased Urmila Devi daughter of PW1 Kirpa Ram was married to Harbans Lal respondent in the month of October 1984. For about four months, Urmila Devi was kept and treated well but thereafter, all the respondents started giving beatings to her. Respondent Bohri Devi, the mother-in-law of the deceased wanted that she live as wife of all her three sons, i.e., respondent Harbans Lal, with whom she was married and also his two brothers, i.e., respondent Dhani Ram and Karam Chand. Deceased objected to this immoral suggestion of Bohri Devi. Further, all the four respondents used to demand television set, Sofa-set and some large sized vessels meant for cooking rice known as Charoties. Once in the year 1986, Urmila was so severely beaten up that she left the respondents' house and went to her parents' place. Respondent Harbans Lal husband of Urmila Devi accompanied by his father Dialu Ram went to PW9 Basant Ram Pradhan of his Gram Panchayat and requested him to convene a meeting of the Panchayat and manage to get Urmila Devi (deceased) back to their place. Basant Ram accompanied respondent Harbans Lal and his father to the house of Kirpa Ram. Gopala Ram (PW2) and one Roshan Lal also accompanied them. There, Pradhan of the Panchayat, in which the village of Kirpa Ram falls, namely, Balbir Singh (PW8) and other members of the Panchayat were called. Urmila Devi made the allegation in the presence of both the Pradhans and the members of the Panchayat that she was beaten up because respondent Bohri Devi her mother-in-law wanted her to live as wife of all her three sons and also that all the respondents demanded television- set, sofa-set and Charoties. Panchayat intervened and on assurance by the respondents that deceased would not be harassed or beaten up, she was sent back to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the deceased delivered a male child who had a tumor on his back. Respondent Harbans Lal took the deceased and his child to Jammu, where he was posted in the Indian Army those days, so that, the child could be treated at the Army Hospital. Deceased lived with Harbans Lal at Jammu for about two years. Three months prior to her death (date of death is 17.11.1990), Urmila Devi was brought back to the village by Harbans Lal her husband from Jammu. She visited her parents' place and remained there for about a month. Then she returned to her in-laws' place. Her husband respondent Harbans Lal was still there in the village.
3. On 17.11.1990, around 11.45 a.m., dead body of Urmila Devi was found in a Khaati (a deep pit dug of water store in which rain water is collected for drinking purposes). Police was immediately informed by Harbans Lal respondent. Police reached the spot. By that time Kirpa Ram (PW1), father of the deceased also reached. Inquest was conducted by PW18 Inspector Pritam Singh. Inquest report is Ext. PE. As per inquest report, there was a mark of injury on the right side of the neck. It is recorded that as per the preliminary investigation, it appeared to be a case of accidental fall into the Khaati leading to death by drowning.
4. Dead body was sent to the Hospital for postmortem examination. Doctor Puran Chand (PW17), who conducted the postmortem examination, did not notice any external or internal injury on the dead body. He gave the opinion that it was a case of death by drowning.
5. After inquest was conducted in the presence of Kirpa Ram the father of deceased, statement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of said Kirpa Ram was recorded. In that statement, Kirpa Ram got recorded that deceased used to be beaten up with a view to forcing her to live immoral life by conducting as wife of all three brothers and also to pressurize her to bring television, sofa-set and some Charoties as items of dowry from her parents. On the basis of this statement, which is Ext. PB, case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext. PB/1. Spot was inspected by I.O. Pritam Singh (PW18) who measured the depth of the Khaati. As per side plan Ext. PM, the depth of Khaati was 13 feet and it contained 10 feet deep water.
6. During investigation, Police also took into possession an application Ext. PA which PW1 Kirpa Ram father of the deceased had submitted to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Baloh on 15.8.1986 alleging therein that his daughter (deceased) had been beaten up by her in- laws and action be taken. This application was given to PW9 Basant Ram, who marked the same to the Police. However, no report was lodged with the police. It appears that Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Badhani, namely, Balbir Singh (PW8) had also been apprised of some beating on 23.8.1986 and the said Pradhan wrote a Note Ext. P4 that the deceased had been beaten up by her husband, who was a serving soldier, as per application given by Urmila Devi and he referred her to a doctor for medical examination.
7. On 6.8.1986, deceased Urmila Devi had been left at the house of PW6 Sant Ram, a real brother of respondent Bohri Devi, by Dialu Ram Bohri Devi's husband. This witness had acted as a go-between for the settlement of the matrimonial alliance between respondent Harbans Lal and the deceased. Dialu Ram told him that deceased was ill-treated by respondents. After sometime, respondents Bohri Devi and Dhani Ram went to Sant Ram's place to get deceased back to their house and gave a written undertaking Ext. P3 that the deceased would never be beaten up in future and that in case, she left the house without informing anybody or did any other objectionable thing, she (deceased) herself would be liable for that.
8. On the completion of investigation, all the respondents were challaned. Concerned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. Sessions Court charged the respondents with the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 Indian Penal Code and put them on trial, when they pleaded not guilty.
9. Eighteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring the charge home to the respondents. Many of the witnesses are of formal nature. Material witnesses are PW1 Kirpa Ram father of the deceased, PW6 Sant Ram who got the matrimonial alliance between the respondent Harbans Lal and the deceased settled, PW4 Brahmi Devi mother of the deceased, PW5 Rattan Chand an uncle of the deceased, PW8 Balbir Singh Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Badhani, PW7 Bhup Singh a witness of undertaking Ext. P3, PW9 Basant Ram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Baloh, PW17 Dr. Puran Chand, who conducted the postmortem examination and PW18 Inspector Pritam Singh who conducted the investigation.
10. We may state at the very outset that there is no evidence worth the name suggesting that deceased was beaten up after the year 1986 when matter was brought to the notice of Panchayat and a complaint Ext. PA was submitted by PW1 Kirpa Ram father of the deceased to the Pradhan of the Panchayat, namely, Basant Ram PW9.
11. Allegation of the prosecution is that the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the Khaati because she had been beaten up on the day of her death. However, no external or internal injury was found on her dead body by PW17 Dr. Puran Chand, who conducted the postmortem examination, which fact negates the allegation that the deceased was beaten up on the day of her death or within a few days prior to that. No witness came forward to testify that the deceased was beaten up or subjected to harassment after the undertaking Ext.P3 was given by respondents Bohri Devi and one of her sons respondent herein to PW6 Sant Ram in the year 1986. According to PW2 Gopala Ram, he had been informed by one Rahu Ram and his father Jhomfa Ram that all the respondents had given beating to the deceased on the day of her death but neither said Rahu Ram nor his father Jhomfa Ram was examined by the prosecution.
12. In view of the above stated position, it cannot be said that deceased was subjected to beating or physical torture on the day of her death or a few days prior to her death.
13. Also we find that FIR is not spontaneous. Kirpa Ram the father of the deceased, who lodged the FIR by making statement Ext. PB, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was very much present when inquest was conducted. He is a signatory to the inquest report as a witness. It is mentioned in the inquest report that apparently it appeared to be a case of accidental fall in the Khaati and death by drowning. Statement Ext. PB was made by PW1 Kirpa Ram much after the inquest was conducted.
14. Allegation that respondent Bohri Devi used to suggest to the deceased to live as wife of all her three sons appears to have been concocted. Case of the prosecution is that soon after the marriage (to be precise four months after marriage) Bohri Devi started pressurizing the deceased to allow all her three sons to co-habit with her (deceased). Deceased allegedly informed her parents, including her father Kirpa Ram about this immoral proposal of her mother-in-law 4-5 months after the marriage. Marriage had taken place in the year 1984. A written complaint Ext. PA was lodged by PW1 Kirpa Ram the father of the deceased with Basant Ram (PW9) Pradhan of the Panchayat. In the said complaint there is no mention of the aforesaid allegation. So is the case with regard to the allegation of demand for television, sofa-set and Charoties. According to the prosecution, these demands were made four months after the marriage and the deceased had apprised her parents of such demands immediately. However, in the complaint Ext. PA there is no mention of such a demand even.
15. PW2 Gopala Ram, PW5 Rattan Singh, PW6 Sant Ram, PW8 Balbir Singh and PW9 Basant Ram though testified that deceased had in the Panchayat gatherings disclosed that Bohri Devi wanted her to allow all her three sons to co-habit with her as husbands and also all the respondents demanded television, sofa-set and Charoties, yet in their statements to the Police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure, with which they were duly confronted and which statements stand proved on record, they did not get these things recorded which fact suggests that their statements are nothing but an after- thought and hence concocted. Not only that the aforesaid witnesses are contradicted by their previous statements with which they were confronted, with regard to the aforesaid allegations, as stated hereinabove, they are also contradicted by PW7 Bhup Singh, who very categorically stated that when on 6.6.1986 writing Ext. P3 was prepared at the house of Sant Ram (PW6), Urmila Devi (deceased) had not disclosed the cause of her alleged beating and harassment, much less the demand for dowry by the respondents or respondent Bohri Devi her mother-in-law, compelling her to live as wife of all her three sons.
In view of the above stated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, appeal is dismissed.