1. These appeals are being disposed of by common judgment since both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 26.2.2001 passed byte Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharmshala,District Kangra, H. P. in Sessions Case No.252-P/98 under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The criminal appeal preferred by the State has come up for consideration after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 26.2.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharmshala, District Kangra, H. P. in Sessions Case No.252-P/98 acquitting accusedPromodh Chand under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting him under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code whereas, remaining accused namely Chhotto Ram and Anita Devi were also acquitted for the offences under Sections306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that victim/deceased Sakina Devi was married with accused No.1Pramodh Chand in the year 1992 and out of wedlock two sons were born. Initially the married life was peaceful. However, after three years of marriage accused No.1 Pramodh Chand(husband), accused No.2 Chhotu (debar) and Accused No.3Anita Devi, sister-in-law (Nanand) of the deceased/victim started maltreating her. After three years of marriage victim/deceased apprised her mother when she visited her parents’ house that accused No.1 used to maltreat and beat her. Consequent upon such maltreatment and beatings victim/deceased Sakina consumed poison and died on20.5.1997. On completion of the investigation, the accused were charged for the aforesaid offences.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through their statements under Section 313Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.
5. PW11 Shakti Chand, SHO recorded rapat on the information of PW4 Ruvel Chand. PW11 Sakti Chand also prepared spot map Ex.PW 11/A and got post-mortem of victim/deceased conducted. PW1 Dr. Karan Sharma along with Dr.Veena Sharma, on examination of dead body of Sakina Devion 21.5.1997 gave the following observations:
“CRANIUM AND SPINAL CORD. Normal 1. Walls, ribs, cartilages, pleurae larynx and trachea, lungs, pericardium : Normal.
HEART : B/s chambers full of blood.
LARGE VESSELS : Normal.
Abdomen : Walls, peritonium, Mouth, larynx and oesophagus : Normal.
Liver, spleen, kidneys : Pale.
BLADDER : Empty Organs of Generation : Normal.
Muscles and bones joints : Normal.
The post-mortem report is Ex.PW1/C given by PW1 and Dr. Veena Sharm, and their final opinion is Ex.PW1/E which was given after thereceipt of Chemical Examiner's report Ex.PW1/D,the deceased died due to consumption of Alluminium phosphate poison.”
6. Prosecution case is mainly based on the evidence of PW2 Bakshi Ram, the father of the victim/deceased, PW3Kunta Devi, the mother of the victim/deceased, PW4 Ruvel Chand, the uncle of the victim/deceased, PW5 Veena Devi, the real sister of deceased Sakina Devi.
7. The prosecution has made a reference to the testimony of PW2 Bakshi Ram where he has given specific instance regarding maltreatment and cruelty caused by all the accused to his daughter Sakina Devi. This instance relates to the year 1995-96. The prosecution has also asserted that in view of the testimony of PW2 Bakshi Ram duly supported by the statement of PW3 Kunta Devi as well as by PW4 Ruvel Chand and PW5 Veena Devi, the prosecution has been able to establish its case and, more so, supported by the testimony ofPW1 Dr. Karan Sharma who has specifically stated that the cause of the death of Sakina is due to consumption of aluminium phosphate.
8. The relevant prosecution witness PW2 Bakshi Ram has stated that in the year 1995 the deceased made complaint about her harassment by the accused persons this wife, who later on, told him about this fact. When PW2visited his house in the month of November, 1995 then also deceased met him in his house and told that accused Pramodh Chand has started maltreating and beating her after consuming liquor and other accused Chhotu and Anita Devi were also harassing and maltreating her on petty matters. However, PW2 advised the victim/deceased that on next visit he will take up the matter with the accused persons as he was on short leave at that time. Thereafter the victim/deceased met him in the month of December, 1996 when she visited his place of posting along with her husband Pramodh Chand. In view of the testimony of PW2, when he inquired from his daughter about the behaviour of the accused then he was apprised that accused Pramodh Chand is still beating her after consuming the liquor. PW2, however, on 20th May, 1997 at about 11. PM came to know through a telephone call given by his nephew about that victim Sakina has died. After hearing the news PW2 reached the spot. However, when he reached the dead body was already taken for cremation and report could not be lodged on 22.5.1997 as large number of persons assembled at his house and he was under shock. However, the report Ex.PW2/A was lodged on 23.5.1997. In cross-examination PW2 has denied that he came to know about harassment by the accused persons from his wife when he visit his house after hearing about the death of his daughter. It is also indicated in cross-examination that he was not able to say that about the maltreatment and beating given to victim/deceased by the accused persons, any report was made to the panchayat or police by any member of his family.
9. PW3 Kunta Devi, the mother of victim/deceased in her endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that after three years of marriage when victim/deceased came to her house she told that accused Pramodh Chand has started harassing and beating her after consuming liquor and accused Chhotu (devar) and Anita (Nanand) were also harassing her on petty matters. PW3, however, consoled her daughter that on arrival of her father the incident would be narrated to him, so that, he will take the matter with the accused persons. Before the death of the victim/deceased, when victim/deceased visited her house at that time also she made a complaint about beatings given by accused Pramodh Chand after consuming liquor. In cross-examination PW3 has admitted that Sakina (deceased) used to visit her house once and twice in a month and she had informed about the harassment and complaint of Sakina to her husband and brother of her husband Ruvel Chand. However, PW3 has denied that deceased was suffering from dysentery and vomiting 2-3 days prior to her death. PW3 has also admitted in cross-examination that on 20.5.1997 elder brother of my her husband Ruvel Singh along with some other persons visited police station, Baijnath.
10. PW4 Ruvel Chand, the uncle of deceased/victim in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that after 3-4 years of marriage he noticed that Sajkina Devi was in depression. In the year 1996 he came to know from Skina (deceased/victim) that she had been beaten by accused Parmodh Chand and turned out from the house, even the children were kept by the accused persons with them. Skina (victim/deceased) stayed with her parents in their house on that day and on the following day he took her to her in laws house and advised the accused persons not to harass and maltreat her. Thereafter the victim/deceased was met him twice and thrice and during all such meetings she had been making complaint that she was being harassed and maltreated by accused Pramodh Chand. On 20.5.1997 PW4 learnt about the death of Sakina from a persons and he visited the house of the accused persons along with other family members. PW4 suspected that Sakina Devi had committed suicide by consuming some poison. PW4 in his cross-examination PW4 has stated that he told to the police that after 3-4 years of the marriage Skina was beaten by accused Pramodh. He has not told to the police that Skina was turned out of the house after giving beatings and next day he took her to the house of the accused persons. Only narration was made to the police that Pramodh Chand had been giving beatings to Sakina Devi. PW4 had subsequently admitted in cross-examination that he had not told to the police that accused Pramodh used to beat the victim/deceased after consuming liquor. After hearing the news of death of victim when visited the house of the accused persons. PW4 also visited the room where Skina was lying dead and watched the dead body by standing just beside the dead body. However, he did not notice any foul smell of alluminium phosphide. He noticed that the shirt was smeared with vomiting and salwar was smeared with dysentery. PW4 self stated that the victim/ deceased used to visit her parents' house after 2-3 months. PW4 has further admitted in cross-examination that 20-22 days prior to the death of victim/deceased, she along with her husband visited his house to attend the “Jagrata” and that time also they had quarrel about some clothes. However, such fact was not stated to the police. PW4 has stated that once in the year 1996 he was told by Skina's mother that Skina is being harassed by the accused persons. Skina (deceased/victim) told him about harassment in July, 1996. However, no report to this effect was brought to the notice of the police, panchayat and “biradari”.
11. PW5 Veena Devi, the real sister of the victim/deceased in her endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that whenever deceased/victim visited her house she made complaints about the harassment and beatings given by her husband Pramodh Chand and other accused persons. However, PW4 never visited the house of the accused on getting the information about the death of Sakina.
12. PW6 H.C. Tarlok Chand, PW7 Constable Kishori Lal, PW8 S.I. Vinod Kumar, PW9 Constable Tarlok Raj and PW10 Rajesh Rana , the Photographer have stated as per the role assigned to them.
13. PW9 Tarlok Raj has stated that while he was posted in Police Station, Baijnath on 5.6.1997 MHC Talok Chand handed over one parcel and envelope sealed with seal impression CHD to him vide R.C. No.92/21, which he deposited with FSL, Junga on 6.6.1997 and handed over the receipt to the MHC.
14. PW11 Inspector Shakti Chand, the Investigating Officer had recorded the report Ex. PW2/A on 23.5.1997 and had visited the spot and prepared the spot map Ex.PW11/A. In cross-examination he has stated that he visited the spot on 20.5.1997. He never suspected any foul play at that time regarding the death of Sakina. PW11 further stated in crossexamination that when he visited the spot all vomiting were cleared already and he tried to recover the tablets of aluminum phosphide but nothing was recovered. PW11, However, stated that no medicine of any kind was available on the spot. PW11 was apprised by the accused persons that victim/deceased Skina died of dysentery. Till 23.5.1997 nobody had doubt about the death of Sakina. As per rapat No.25 dated 20.5.1997, Ex.DB till 25.5.2997 there were no suspicions or doubts about the death of Sakina.
15. On the analysis of the prosecution evidences and materials on record, we have noticed that there are apparent contradictions between the medical report and the postmortem report. None of the prosecution witnesses including PW2, the father of the victim/deceased, PW3 Kunta Devi, the mother of the victim/deceased, PW4 Ruvel Chand, the uncle of the victim/deceased and PW5 Veena Devi, the real sister of the victim/deceased though interested in this case have come forward to narrate that the victim/deceased was maltreated and harassed by the accused persons but in that respect no complaint was ever made to the police, panchayat or 'biradari'. No definite time and place was also indicated about the harassment and maltreatment. Only vague allegations were made and that too about the incident of the year 1996. PW2 and PW4 were apprised of maltreatment by PW3, the mother of the victim/deceased. None of the prosecution witnesses including PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 have ever seen before them about any maltreatment or harassment being given by the accused persons to Sakina (victim/deceased). On visit of the spot by PW11 Sakti Chand, the Investigating Officer, neither aluminum phosphide nor other medicines of any kind were recovered from the spot. PW11 was told by the accused persons that Sakina had died due to vomiting and dysentery. PW11 had not suspected any foul play regarding the death of Sakina.
16. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there was no act directly or indirectly of curetly done by the accused persons which can be brought under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code such view of ours is also supported by a verdict given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manju Ram Kalita versus State of Assam, (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 330. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in the right perspective and has wrongly arrived at the findings that accused Pramodh Chand is guilty of the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. In our considered view the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
17. In view of the aforesaid observations, Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 2001 of convict Pramodh Kumar (Appellant) is allowed and the he is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, IPC and the Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2001 preferred by the State of H. P. is dismissed.
18. The bail bonds furnished by the accused persons are ordered to be cancelled.