Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bench: JUSTICES Rajiv Sharma and Vivek Singh Thakur
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem Chand and Ors. On 17 June 2016
Law Point:
Abetment of suicide – No evidence on record that deceased was subjected to cruelty by accused prior to her death and cruelty was to such an extent which forced the deceased to commit suicide – Accused rightly acquitted.
JUDGEMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed against Judgment dated 21.7.2010 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala in S.T. No. 25/10, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’ for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offences under Sections 498-A/34 and 306/34 IPC, have been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the deceased Monika, daughter of complainant Kishori Lal, was married to accused Barfeen. Accused Prem Chand is the father-in-law and accused Maya Devi is the mother-in-law of deceased. Accused Naresh Kumar and Yamun are brothers-in-law of the deceased. After one year of marriage, all the accused persons started teasing and maltreating the deceased. One day, accused Naresh had teased Monika. She reported the matter to her husband, Barfeen. Accused Barfeen administered beatings to Monika. Co-accused Maya Devi also took side of Naresh. After this occurrence, all the accused gave beatings to Monika. Matter was reported to the Gram Panchayat by the complainant but she did not agree to the decision of the Panchayat. Complaint was lodged at Police Post, Yol. A compromise was arrived at before the police. Complainant brought his daughter to his house where she resided for 5/6 months. Monika filed an application for maintenance in the Court. She was given a separate room by the order of the Court. On 31.8.2009, accused had beaten Monika when she was planting vegetables in the fields. On 2.9.2009, one Sonu telephoned complainant Kishori Lal upon which he came to the house of the accused and found dead body of Monika who had committed suicide after consuming poison. Police was informed. Statement of Kishori Lal was recorded vide Ext. PW-1/A. FIR was lodged on the basis of the Ext. PW-1/A. Police took into possession vial of poison. A bed sheet was also taken into possession. Case property was deposited with MHC Police Station, Dharamshala. It was sent for chemical examination. Investigation was completed Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.
2. Prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. All the accused were acquitted by the learned trial Court. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the judgment and record carefully.
5. Kishori Lal (PW-1) is the father of the deceased Monika. He deposed that Monika was married to accused Barfeen four years back. For 1-1/2 years after marriage, relations remained normal. Thereafter, brother-in-law of the deceased teased Monika. Monika reported the matter to her mother-in-law i.e. accused Maya Devi. She took the side of her son and called Monika names. In the evening, his daughter told this occurrence to her husband, who gave beatings to his daughter. After this occurrence, for two months all the accused continued to beat his daughter. Matter was reported to the Gram Panchayat. They did not agree to the decision of Panchayat. They made a complaint to the police. A compromise was arrived at. His daughter and son-in-law started residing separately in the same village. He brought his daughter to his house. She stayed with him for 5/6 months. His daughter filed an application for maintenance in the Court. Court ordered maintenance to his daughter and also ordered for separate room for his daughter. His daughter started staying in separate room. On 31.8.2009, his daughter had come to him and told that she was beaten by her brother-in-law and husband when she was planting vegetables in the fields. Next day, his daughter had gone back. On 2.9.2009, he received a telephonic call from Sonu. He went to the house of accused and found his daughter was lying dead. His statement was recorded by the police under Section 154 CrPC vide Ext. PW-1/A. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in his statement Ext. PW-1/A, it was not mentioned that, on 31.8.2009, when his daughter was planting vegetables, she was beaten by her husband and brother-in-law. He also admitted that Prem Chand had 40-50 Kanals of land. He also admitted that his daughter and son-in-law stayed separately in rented accommodation for one year.
6. Kanta Devi (PW-2) also deposed that her daughter Monika was married to Barfeen four years back. Relations between the parties remained normal for one and a half years. Accused Naresh had teased her daughter. Her daughter brought the matter to the notice of her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law took the side of her son (accused Naresh). Her daughter brought the matter to the notice of her husband. He did not take any corrective measures. Then all the accused gave beatings to her daughter. They lodged a complaint with the Panchayat first and then with the police. Matter was compromised before the police. Her daughter and son-in-law started living separately. Her daughter filed an application for maintenance. Court ordered maintenance. She was also provided separate room.
7. Dr. Sanjay (PW-3) has conducted postmortem examination. Postmortem report is Ext. PW-3/B. According to him, cause of death was poisoning. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the nature of bruises mentioned in Ext. PW-3/B was superficial.
8. Rakesh Kumar (PW-4) was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat. He testified that there used to trivial issues between Monika and her in-laws due to day-to-day work. Monika used to complain to him that accused used to quarrel with her and used to ask her to work in the fields. He used to ask he accused not to quarrel.
9. Inspector Rajiv Attri (PW-11) testified that he was posted as SHO Dharamshala since June, 2008. On 2.9.2009, at about 11.15 AM, after receiving information in the Police Station, Rapat Ext. PW-6/A was lodged. He visited the spot. He found dead body of Monika. Statement of Kishori Lal, father of the deceased was recorded under Section 154 CrPC vide Ext. PW-1/A. He sent Rukka. He also prepared spot map Ext. PW-
9/A. He took into possession a bed sheet. He also took into possession a vial vide seizure memo Ext. PW-4/A. He recorded statements of the witnesses.
10. What emerges from the statements of witnesses is that the marriage between Monika and Barfeen was solemnised about four years prior to the date of incident. Relations between the parties were cordial for 1-1/2 years. PW-1 Kishori Lal has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that a compromise was arrived at before the Panchayat and before the police also. However, fact of the matter is that copy of compromise arrived at before the Panchayat or police has not been placed on record. It has come in the statement of P.W. -1 Kishori Lal that the Court had ordered separate accommodation for his daughter and his son-in-law and they started living in separate room. Accused are agriculturists. They own about 40-50 Kanals of land. PW-4 Rakesh Kumar has deposed that Monika used to tell him that accused were forcing her to work in the fields. Accused are agriculturists and it was expected from the deceased to work in the fields. Incidents relied upon by the prosecution are trivial in nature. Main focus of the prosecution is that the brother-in-law of deceased teased her. Matter was brought to the notice of accused Maya Devi (mother-in-law of deceased). She took the side of her son, accused Naresh. Thereafter husband of deceased intervened in the matter. It was not a serious matter.
11. According to PW-1 Kishori Lal, accused has beaten up his daughter on 31.8.2009. Statement of PW-1 Kishori Lal was recorded under Section 154 CrPC vide Ext. PW-1/A. It is not stated in Ext. PW-1/A that accused had administered bearings to Monika on 31.8.2009. It is apparent that deceased did not intend to do agricultural work and in case accused asked her to do the same, it can to be termed as ‘cruelty’ to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Though there were bruises on the body of deceased but these were superficial in nature as per the postmortem report Ext. PW-3/B. There is no evidence to establish that prior to her death, deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused and cruelty was to the extent which forced the deceased to commit suicide. There is also no evidence that cruelty was in close proximity to the time of commission of suicide. In view of the discussion and analysis made herein above, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed. Bail bonds of accused are discharged.
All pending applications are also disposed of.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment