Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On: 4.4.2025 vs State Of H.P on 30 May, 2025
2025:HHC:16788 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 121 of 2010 Reserved on: 4.4.2025 Date of Decision: 30.05.2025 Lalit Rana ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Simran, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.4.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, H.P., (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before learned Trial Court) was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, pay fine of ₹3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2
2025:HHC:16788 undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC. It was asserted that the accused Lalit Rana informed the police on 22.6.2008 that his wife had committed suicide by hanging herself. Vijay Sharma (PW12) went to the Regional Hospital, Nahan, for verification of the information, where Veena Devi (PW1) made a statement (Ex.PW1/A) that earlier Lata Devi (since deceased) was married to Naresh Kumar in the year 1987-88. She obtained a divorce in the year 1989 and married the accused in the year 1993-94. She and the accused were residing together after their marriage. Pooja (PW2), was born to Lata Devi. The accused had cordial relations with deceased Lata Devi for 4-5 years after his marriage, however, he started picking up quarrels with her on trivial matters. She used to narrate all these facts to Veena Devi (PW1). Veena Devi counselled the accused, but he did not heed her advice. Complaints were also made to Savitri Devi, 3 2025:HHC:16788 Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Devka Pudla. She also counselled the accused, but the accused did not mend his ways. Lata Devi informed Veena Devi one month before her death that the accused Lalit Rana had insulted her by pulling the drawstring of her salwar in the presence of labourers. Veena Devi talked to the accused, and he acknowledged his fault. He promised not to repeat such acts. Lata Devi told these facts to her brother Kamal Singh. Lata Devi informed Veena Devi in the evening of 21.6.2008 and morning of 22.6.2008 that Lalit Rana was harassing her. She requested Veena Devi to visit her matrimonial home, however, Veena was ill and could not meet her. She received a call on 22.6.2008, at about 7/7.30 that Lata Devi had committed suicide by hanging. Lata Devi had committed suicide because she was fed up with the behaviour of the accused. Statement (Ex.PW1/A) was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered. Vijay Kumar Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW12) conducted the investigation of the case. He prepared the inquest report (Ex.PW12/A) and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. Dr. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (PW9) conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body. He issued postmortem report (Ex.PW9/A), in which it was mentioned that 4 2025:HHC:16788 the death was probably caused due to partial hanging leading to asphyxia. He preserved the viscera and handed it over to the police official accompanying the dead body. Vijay Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW12) visited the spot and prepared a site plan (Ex.PW2/B). Viscera was sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per the report (Ex.PW8/A), no poison was detected in the viscera. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge for trial.
3. Learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. Veena Devi (PW1) is the informant and sister of the deceased. Pooja (PW2) is the daughter of the deceased. Sirmour Singh (PW3) is the brother of the deceased. Satish Kumar (PW4) did not support the prosecution's case. Kamlesh (PW5) is the cousin and Kanta Devi (PW11) is sister of the deceased. Krishan Kumar (PW6) took the photographs. ASI Jagdish (PW7) signed 5 2025:HHC:16788 the FIR. SI Subhash Chand (PW8) conducted the investigation partly. Dr. Mahender Kumar Sharma (PW9) conducted the postmortem examination of Lata. Som Dutt (PW10) proved that marriage was solemnised between the accused and deceased Lata Devi. Dy.S.P. Vijay Sharma (PW11) conducted the investigation.
5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., admitted that he had called the police regarding the death of his wife. He admitted that police conducted an inquest on the dead body. He stated that the deceased had not shown her willingness to go to the Tribhuvan Temple despite his requests. She chose to live in her home. He stated that Lata was a short-tempered lady. He had sacrificed a goat in the temple as per the custom. He distributed the goat meat to his relatives on the way. Lata Devi questioned him why he had not brought the whole goat meat with him. She misbehaved with him. He went to the house of Dil Bahadur (DW1), where he was told that Lata Devi had committed suicide by hanging herself. He went to the spot and also informed the police on the telephone. He was falsely implicated in the present case. Statement of Dil Bahadur (DW1) was recorded in defence.
6
2025:HHC:16788
6. Learned Trial Court held that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses corroborated each other. The fact that the prosecution had only cited related witnesses will not make the prosecution's case doubtful because only the relatives would have known about the household affairs. The witnesses withstood their cross-examination, and there was nothing to doubt their testimonies. The statement of Dil Bahadur (DW1) was not sufficient to discard the prosecution's case. The testimonies of the witnesses were consistent that the accused treated the deceased with cruelty. He was counselled by the relatives of the deceased, but he did not mend his behaviour. He had pulled the drawstring of Lata Devi in the presence of the labourers. She was disturbed by this act. The prosecution's evidence proved that the accused used to give beatings to the deceased, but there was no evidence that he intended her to commit suicide. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC but convicted him of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.
7. Being aggrieved from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused 7 2025:HHC:16788 has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. The prosecution's evidence was not sufficient to prove the cruelty of the accused. There was a considerable delay in lodging the FIR, which made the prosecution's case highly suspect. There were various contradictions in the testimonies of eyewitnesses. Meena Devi said that Pooja told her about the harassment of the deceased, but Pooja did not state any such fact, and this made the prosecution's case suspect. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses had major contradictions, which adversely affected the prosecution's case. The informant failed to prove various allegations levelled by her in her complaint. Prosecution witnesses had sufficient time to connive with each other to falsely implicate the accused. The investigation is defective, and the defence evidence proved on the balance of probability that the accused was not even present in the home when the deceased had committed suicide. As per the prosecution's case, the accused pulled the drawstring of Lata Devi in the presence of the labourers, however, the labourers were not produced before the Court. All the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be 8 2025:HHC:16788 allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
8. I have heard Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Simran, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State.
9. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the appellant/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. There were various contradictions in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The incident occurred on 22.6.2008, whereas the matter was reported to the police on 23.6.2008. The delay in reporting the matter to the police makes the prosecution's case highly suspect. There are major contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which made the prosecution's case highly suspect. Learned Trial Court had acquitted the accused for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, but convicted him of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, which is impermissible. The defence evidence made it highly probable that the deceased was short- tempered lady. She had a dispute with her husband regarding the 9 2025:HHC:16788 distribution of meat. Testimony of Dil Bahadur (DW1) proved this fact. Learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the testimony of Dil Bahadur (DW1). He prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgments in Jafarudheen and others Vs. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ratan Singh and others (2020) 12 SCC 630, Jagdishraj Khatta Vs. State of H.P. (2019) 9 SCC 248, D. Thamodaran Vs. Kandasamy and another (2015) 16 SCC 758 and Nirat Singh Vs. Sita Devi and others 2025:HHC:5345 in support of his submission.
10. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State, submitted that the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused because it was not proved that the accused intended the deceased to commit suicide. No finding was recorded that she was not subjected to cruelty. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused by the learned Trial Court will not help the defence. There was sufficient evidence on record to prove the involvement of the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed.
11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10
2025:HHC:16788
12. It was submitted that the learned Trial Court could not have acquitted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and convicted him of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. This Submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1260 that offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC are independent of each other and it is not necessary that the person should be found guilty of the commission of both offences on the same evidence. It was observed at page 629:
"22. Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498-A and may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under Section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned..."
13. A similar view was taken in Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 5 SCC 177 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 971 : 2002 SCC OnLine SC 510 wherein it was observed at page 183: 11
2025:HHC:16788 "17. As regards the core issue as to whether charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 are independent of each other and acquittal of one does not lead to acquittal on the other, as noticed earlier, there appears to be a long catena of cases in affirmation thereto and as such further dilation is not necessary neither are we inclined to do so..."
14. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused because the evidence on record did not indicate that the accused had intended that the deceased to commit suicide. Learned Trial Court had not recorded any finding that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty. Therefore, no advantage can be derived from the acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
15. The scope of Section 498-A of IPC was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aluri Venkata Ramana vs. Aluri Thirupathi Rao and Ors. (12.12.2024 - SC Order):
MANU/SCOR/151680/2024, wherein it was observed: -
"7. Firstly, the provision under Section 498-A IPC must be examined. The said provision reads as under:
"498A. Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, 12 2025:HHC:16788 or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
8. Section 498A of the IPC was introduced in the year 1983 with the primary objective of protecting married women from cruelty at the hands of their husbands or their in-laws. The section provides a broad and inclusive definition of "cruelty," encompassing both physical and mental harm to the woman's body or health. In addition, it covers acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands for property or valuable security, including demands related to dowry. Notably, the provision also recognizes acts that create circumstances leading a woman to the point of suicide as a form of cruelty.
9. The definition of "harassment" under the Explanation to Section 498A is specifically outlined in clause (b), independent of the "wilful conduct" described in clause (a), thus necessitating a separate reading of the two. It is significant to note that the inclusion of the word "or" at the end of clause (a) clearly indicates that "cruelty" for the purposes of Section 498A can either involve wilful conduct that causes mental or physical harm or harassment related to unlawful demands, such as dowry. Moreover, these forms of cruelty can co-exist, but the absence of a dowry-related demand does not preclude the application of the section in cases where there is mental or physical harassment unrelated to the dowry. In interpreting the provision, it is crucial to consider the broader objective behind its introduction to safeguarding women from all forms of cruelty, regardless of whether the nature of the harm inflicted includes a specific demand for dowry or not.
10. The statement of objects and reasons for the introduction of this provision in the Indian Penal Code by The Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act No.45 of 1983) reads as under -
13
2025:HHC:16788 "The increasing number of Dowry Deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the workings of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. Cases of cruelty by the husband and the relatives of the husband, which culminate in suicide by, or murder of, the hapless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction of the cases involving such cruelty. It is therefore proposed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of Dowry Death but also cases of cruelty to married women by their in-laws."
11. It is relevant to note the last line, which explains that the aim of the introduction of Section 498A in the IPC is not only to curb cruelty relating to dowry demand but also cases of cruelty to married woman by their in-laws. A reasonable interpretation of this would be that cruelty within this section goes beyond the definition of cruelty relating just to dowry demand.
12. In the judgment of U. Suvetha v. State (2009)6 SCC 757, this Court outlined the necessary ingredients required to establish an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, as follows:
"7. Ingredients of Section 498-A of the Penal Code are:
(a)The woman must be married;
(b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
(c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by the husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband."
13. From the above ingredients reiterated by this Court, it is clear that an unlawful demand for dowry is not a pre- requisite element to constitute "cruelty" under Section 498A IPC. It suffices that the conduct falls within either of the two broad categories outlined in clauses (a) or (b) of the provision, namely, wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or mental harm (clause a), or harassment intended to coerce 14 2025:HHC:16788 the woman or her family to meet any unlawful demand (clause b). Therefore, either form of cruelty, independent of dowry demand, is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC and make the offence punishable under the law.
14. Further, in the judgment of Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 6 SCC 407, this Court observed that -
"25. The word 'cruelty' in common English acceptation denotes a state of conduct which is painful and distressing to another. The legislative intent in Section 498-A is clear enough to indicate that in the event of there being a state of conduct by the husband to the wife or by any relative of the husband which can be attributed to be painful or distressing, the same would be within the meaning of the section".
15. The impugned judgment of the High Court carefully examined several legal precedents pertaining to the two distinct limbs of Section 498A IPC. The High Court correctly observed that the decisions cited by the counsel for the accused did not establish that the wilful conduct referred to in clause (a) of Section 498A would only be considered as cruelty if it is coupled with a dowry demand or any unlawful demand for property or valuable security, as specified in clause (b). The High Court rightly rejected this contention. However, following this observation, the High Court also noted that the Appellant did not specifically allege a demand for property or valuable security, and further concluded that the allegation of the accused physically assaulting the Appellant did not amount to "wilful conduct" as envisaged under clause (a) of Section 498A IPC. The judgment of the High Court primarily focused on the issue of whether a dowry demand is a necessary element for the applicability of Section 498A IPC. The conclusion it arrived at was that the two clauses of the provision must be read disjunctively, thereby confirming that the absence of a dowry demand does not preclude the application of the section. Despite this, the High Court went on to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused under Section 498A IPC. Notably, the High Court failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why the allegations made by the Appellant, specifically that she had been physically beaten, did not amount to "cruelty" 15
2025:HHC:16788 under Section 498A IPC. The High Court's decision to quash the proceedings appears to have been primarily influenced by the lack of a dowry-related demand in the case, without addressing the broader implications of the allegations of physical abuse, which can fall within the scope of "cruelty" as contemplated by the provision."
16. It is apparent from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the definition of Cruelty not only covers the acts of harassment designed to coerce the woman or her family into fulfilling unlawful demands of dowry but also recognises the acts which involve mental or physical harm to the deceased.
17. Pooja Devi (PW2) is the daughter of the deceased. She was residing with the accused and the deceased; therefore, she is the best person to depose about household affairs. She stated that the accused is her father. He used to sell illicit liquor. Lata Devi protested the sale of the liquor. The accused used to quarrel with the deceased under the influence of liquor. She (Pooja) did not have good relations with the accused because of the harassment of her mother. She was present in her home on 22.6.2008. Labourers were called to carry out the construction work 15-20 days before the death of Lata Devi. Lata Devi went to the labourers to serve tea, where the accused pulled the drawstring of her salwar in the presence of labourers. Lata Devi started weeping and telephoned her brother and sister about the 16 2025:HHC:16788 incident. She (Pooja) reached the village in the morning of 22.6.2008 due to a Pooja function. Lata Devi was also to go to the Tribhuni Temple for Pooja. Accused hired a vehicle to go to the temple, but he did not take her and Lata Devi to the temple. Lata Devi was keen to visit the temple on that day. The accused returned from the temple at 4.00 PM. Lata was at home. She asked the accused why he was late. The accused became furious and started damaging the windows with an axe. Accused and Lata Devi shut the door and quarrelled inside the room. She (Pooja) was studying in her room. She came out of the room after some time, but did not find her mother in the house. She came to know after some time that Lata Devi had committed suicide by hanging herself in a nearby jungle. Lata Devi committed suicide because the accused used to torture her frequently, and he had made her life miserable. She stated in her cross-examination that the name of her father is Naresh. He met her on the way when she was going to the house of the accused. The accused went to the Tribhuni Temple with other persons. When she reached the house, Lata Devi was doing the household chores, and she also helped her with the work. She took lunch at about Noon and went to her room. The accused returned at about 4.00 PM. She was not 17 2025:HHC:16788 aware that Dil Bahadur had accompanied the accused. The accused had brought the entire meat to the house, and Lata Devi did not tell him why he had distributed the meat on the way while coming from the temple. All the people had consumed alcohol while returning from the temple. Lata Devi told something to the accused, and the accused started quarrelling with her. He could not say what was told by Lata Devi, which infuriated the accused. Dil Bahadur (DW1) started separating the share of the villagers, which was to be distributed as Prasad. She was studying in the room. Dil Bahadur (DW1) stayed in the house for half an hour and thereafter went for the distribution of meat as Prasad. The accused returned when news of the death of Lata Devi spread. Sisters and brothers of Lata had also visited the house on that evening. The police made inquiries to them about the cause of death. Lata Devi wanted her (Pooja) to marry Ajay, and the marriage between them was fixed, but she refused to marry him because her maternal uncle did not give consent to the marriage. She denied that Lata Devi was upset due to this act. Prem Chand and Sandeep were labourers working in the house when the accused had pulled the drawstring of the salwar. She had returned to the house on the very night when Lata Devi had 18 2025:HHC:16788 committed suicide. She was residing with her Aunt Kanta at Nahan. She denied that the accused had not harassed Lata Devi, and she was making a false statement.
18. Kanta Devi (PW11) corroborated her version. She stated that Lata Devi told her many times that the accused used to torture and humiliate her on petty matters. The accused is involved in the business of the illicit distillation and sale of liquor. He used to beat Lata Devi in a state of intoxication. Pooja was born to Lata Devi during the subsistence of her earlier marriage. She resided in the house of the accused. She had shifted to her (Kanta's) house to pursue her studies at Nahan, and she was facing a problem on account of the maltreatment meted out to her and Lata Devi. Pooja had gone to the house of the accused on 22.6.2008, at about 6.00 AM. She (Kanta) received a message on the same day at about 7.45 PM that Lata Devi had committed suicide. She stated in her cross-examination that she had received information about the death of Lata Devi from the Village Teeb. She and Kamlesh visited the house of Lata Devi. Her statement was recorded by the police after 2-3 days. She had told the police that the accused used to distil illicit liquor. She had not personally seen the accused beating and harassing Lata Devi. 19
2025:HHC:16788 Pooja was residing with her for about two months before the death of Lata Devi. She used to pursue her studies from her home. The police were present in the house of Lata Devi and were inquiring about the cause of death. Police had also made enquiries from her. Pooja had not returned with her. She volunteered to say that Pooja remained in the house of her maternal uncle, Sirmour Singh. She returned to the house of the accused on the next day. Pooja never liked the accused. She volunteered to say that the accused used to harass her. The accused even used to charge diet money from Lata Devi. She was not aware of Lata Devi's source of income. She did not know whether Sirmour Singh, his brother and their wives or Veena were present at the time of recording the statement of Pooja. They had never reported to any authority about the harassment of Lata Devi.
19. The presence of Pooja in the house is established by the testimony of this witness. She categorically stated that Pooja left her home on 22.6.2008. This is also probable because everyone had gone to the Tribhuni temple on that day. The meat was being distributed as a Prasad. Hence, the presence of Pooja in the house of the accused cannot be doubted.
20
2025:HHC:16788
20. The statement of Pooja that the quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased was also not disputed by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The accused stated that the deceased had inquired from him why he had brought less meat. He even examined Dil Bahadur (DW1) to prove this fact. Hence, the testimony regarding the quarrel is to be accepted as correct, and this shows the presence of Pooja on 22.6.2008. Sirmour Singh (PW3) also stated that Pooja was present in the house. This is also corroborated by the statement of Dy.SP Vijay Kumar (PW12), who recorded the statement of Pooja at 11.00 PM. Hence, the presence of Pooja in the house on the date of the incident is duly established.
21. Dil Bahadur (DW1) stated that the accused brought less meat, and Lata became infuriated. She started inquiring from the accused as to why the entire goat was not brought home. The accused replied that he had distributed some meat to the persons living at a distance of 3 to 5 kilometres from his house. Lata Devi took up a quarrel with the accused. He (Dil Bahadur) tried to pacify her by saying that there was nothing wrong with distributing meat, but when the situation did not 21 2025:HHC:16788 improve, he sent the accused to his house, and he started making pieces of the meat. Satish Kumar also came to the spot for the distribution of the meat to the villagers.
22. The statement of this witness is relevant regarding the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC; however, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC by holding that the incident dated 22.6.2008 was not duly proved. Therefore, his testimony is not relevant regarding the cruelty meted out to the deceased.
23. It was submitted that Pooja deposed about the incident of pulling the drawstring of salwar of Lata Devi by the accused in presence of Prem and Sandeep. The police did not examine Prem and Sandeep, and it is sufficient to discard the prosecution's case. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Supp SCC 241: 1988 SCC (Cri) 559 that the prosecution's case cannot be doubted due to the non- examination of the independent witnesses. It was observed at page 245:
22
2025:HHC:16788 "11. In light of these principles, we may now consider the first contention urged by the learned counsel for the ap-
pellants. The contention relates to the failure of the prose- cution to examine independent witnesses. The High Court has examined this contention but did not find any infir- mity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the pros- ecution has not been able to produce any independent wit- ness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several such witnesses. But the prosecu- tion's case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. The experience reminds us that civilised people are generally insensitive when a crime is commit- ted even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that a crime, like a civil dispute, is between two individuals or parties, and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apa- thy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere, whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investi- gating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, there- fore, instead of doubting the prosecution's case for want of an independent witness, must consider the broad spec- trum of the prosecution's version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, sug- gested by the accused."
24. It was laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pohlu v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 196: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1496: 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1393, that the intrinsic worth of the testimony of witnesses has to be assessed by the Court and if the testimony of the witnesses appears to be truthful, the non-examination of other witnesses will not make the testimony of prosecution witness doubtful. It was observed at page 199: - 23
2025:HHC:16788 "10. It was then submitted that some of the material witnesses were not examined, and, in this connection, it was argued that two of the eye-witnesses named in the FIR, namely, Chander and Sita Ram, were not examined by the prosecution. Dharamvir, son of Sukhdei, was also not examined by the prosecution, though he was a material witness, being an injured eyewitness, having witnessed the assault that took place in the house of Sukhdei, PW 2.
It is true that it is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses if it prefers to rely upon the evidence of eyewitnesses examined by it, which it considers sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution. However, the intrinsic worth of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution has to be assessed by the Court. If their evidence appears to be truthful, reliable and acceptable, the mere fact that some other witnesses have not been examined will not adversely affect the case of the prosecution. We have, therefore, to examine the evidence of the two eye witnesses, namely, PW 1 and PW 2, and to find whether their evidence is true, on the basis of which the conviction of the appellants can be sustained. "
25. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srichand K. Khetwani v. State of Maharashtra, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 32 : (1967) 1 SCR 595: AIR 1967 SC 450: 1967 Cri LJ 414: (1967) 2 SCJ 178, that an adverse inference can be drawn for withholding certain evidence and not for failure to obtain the evidence. It was observed "8. Further, an adverse inference against the prosecution can be drawn only if it withholds certain evidence and not merely on account of its failure to obtain certain evidence. When no such evidence has been obtained, it cannot be said what that evidence could have been and therefore, no question of presuming that that evidence would have been 24 2025:HHC:16788 against the prosecution, under Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, can arise."
26. The testimonies of Prem and Sandeep would have been necessary to corroborate the testimony of Pooja, but her testimony is satisfactory, as noticed above, and the non- examination of Prem and Sandeep will not be fatal to the prosecution's case.
27. It was submitted that the incident had taken place on 22.6.2008, and the matter was reported to the police on 23.6.2008 in the morning. The delay in reporting the matter to the police is fatal to the prosecution's case. This submission cannot be accepted. The delay in reporting the matter does not lead to the rejection of the prosecution's case but merely puts the Court on caution. (Please see Jafarudeen and others (supra), Ratan Singh (supra), D. Thamodaran (supra) and Neeraj Singh (supra).
28. Dy.SP Vijay Sharma (PW12) stated in his cross- examination that he had made inquiries from the brothers of the deceased and the persons present in the house of the accused on 22.6.2008 about the reason of suicide and found out that there was an exchange of hot words between the deceased and the accused over the distribution of meat. The statement of Pooja 25 2025:HHC:16788 was recorded at 11.00 PM. She and other relatives had gathered at the house because of the death of Lata.
29. The cross-examination of this witness shows that he had come to know about the quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Strictly speaking, the statement made to the Investigating Officer during the investigation is hearsay and cannot be admitted; however, the defence itself had put these questions, and these answers were relied on during arguments, therefore, they are being referred to. These answers do not suggest that any fresh version was introduced which was not told to the Investigating Officer on the night of 22.6.2008.
30. Veena Devi (PW1) stated that the accused and deceased resided happily for 2-3 years after their marriage, however, the accused started taking liquor and giving beatings to the deceased. The deceased used to call her (Veena Devi) and tell her about the behaviour of the accused. Lata Devi informed her (Veena) about one month before her death that the drawstring of her salwar was hanging outside the shirt. The accused pulled the drawstring and made her naked in the presence of labourers. She inquired from the accused, who said that it had happened by mistake and he would behave normally in future. Lata Devi 26 2025:HHC:16788 informed her on 21.6.2008 that the accused was harassing her. She called her (Veena Devi) to her house, but she could not visit Lata's matrimonial home. Lata Devi again called her in the morning of 22.6.2008 and told her that they had to visit the Tribhuni temple, and she asked Veena Devi (PW1) to accompany her. She (Veena Devi) told Lata Devi that her family had already hired a vehicle. The police informed her in the evening of 22.6.2008 that Lata Devi had committed suicide. She stated in her cross-examination that she had received the call from Khem Chand, who was serving in the police at Nahan and is related to her. Lata was married to Naresh, and Pooja was born during the subsistence of the marriage. Lata sought a divorce because her mother-in-law used to harass her. She specifically denied that Lata Devi had a short temper. The accused had eloped with Lata to marry her; however, no complaint was made regarding this fact. Pooja was studying at Nahan and was residing with Kanta Devi on the date of deposition. 5-6 persons had accompanied the accused to the Tribhuni temple. She did not visit the house of the accused as his behaviour with Lata Devi was not proper. Her brother, Sirmour Singh, her wife, two sons, Sukh Bahadur, his wife, and her son-in-law accompanied her to the house of the 27 2025:HHC:16788 accused. The police visited the house of the accused on that day. The accused was also sitting with the police. She denied that Pooja shifted to Nahan because it was inconvenient for her to attend College from Village Teeb. Pooja told her that the accused had distributed meat on the way, which led to a quarrel. She had not complained about the beatings to her sister or any authority.
31. It was submitted in her testimony that Pooja had told her about the distribution of the meat on the way is contrary to the statement of Pooja, who claimed that the accused had brought the whole meat to the house, and this contradiction adversely affects the prosecution's case. This submission is not acceptable. Pooja was never asked about the statement made to this witness, even though this witness was cross-examined before Pooja. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Majid v. State of Haryana, (2001) 10 SCC 6: 2002 SCC (Cri) 945: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1439 that the attention of the witness must be drawn to his previous oral statement to impeach his credit. It was observed at page 10:
"14. If the former statement was in writing or was reduced to writing, Section 145 of the Act requires that the attention of the witness must be called to those parts of it which are used for the purpose of contradicting him. Here, the statement allegedly made by PW 6 to DW 1 was not in writing, nor was it reduced to writing. Nonetheless, if the object of examining 28 2025:HHC:16788 DW 1 as a witness was to discredit PW 6, it is only fair to insist that PW 6 himself should have been given an opportunity to explain it. Without PW 6 being asked about that aspect, it is unreasonable to expect PW 6 to explain about it. Hence, it is immaterial that the statement claimed by DW 1 as made to him by PW 6 was not reduced to writing.
15. When PW 6 was cross-examined by the defence counsel, he was not asked anything about the alleged statement made by him to DW 1. In such a situation, we cannot give any credence to the evidence of DW 1."
32. In the present case, the attention of Pooja was not drawn towards the previous inconsistent statement made to Veena; therefore, no advantage can be derived from this statement made by Veena Devi (PW1).
33. Sirmour Singh (PW3) stated that Lata was his sister who was married to the accused in 1993 on her own choice. Lata Devi used to visit his house frequently, and she used to tell him and his wife, Savitri, Ex-Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Devka Purla, about the harassment meted out to her by the accused in her daily life. The accused indulged in the distilling and selling of illicit liquor, which led to a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The accused used to beat Lata Devi in a state of intoxication. He stated in his cross-examination that his house is about 3-4 kilometres from the house of the accused. Accused and Lata were not on visiting terms at his house for about two years after their marriage. However, they used to visit his house 29 2025:HHC:16788 afterwards on the occasion of marriages. He had never complained to the police or the Panchayat about the harassment of Lata Devi or the selling of illicit liquor by the accused. The police were present in the house of Lata Devi when they visited her house. They remained in the house of the accused till midnight. He had told the police about the harassment and the beatings. The police also made inquiries of Pooja.
34. It was submitted that no witness had made any complaint against the accused for the distillation of illicit liquor. This will not make the prosecution's case suspect. The accused was married to Lata, the sister of the prosecution witnesses. Sending the accused to Jail would have put Lata in financial difficulties, and not much can be made out from the failure to report the illicit distillation to the police.
35. Sirmour Singh (PW3) specifically stated that the complaint was made to Savitri. This is the earliest version made to the police that the complaints were made to Savitri, Ex- Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Devka Purla. In any case, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat, (2025) 2 SCC 116: (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 652:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679 that failure to report the matter does 30 2025:HHC:16788 not make the prosecution's case suspect. It was observed at page 122:
17. The appellants' argument that the deceased had not made a single complaint for cruelty or harassment against the appellants in the twelve years of marriage cannot be sustained. Merely because she did not file any complaint for twelve years does not guarantee that there was no instance of cruelty or harassment.
36. It was submitted that Veena Devi (PW1) said in her cross-examination that Lata Devi used to confide in her because she was afraid of her brother; therefore, the testimony of Sirmour Singh (PW3) is not reliable. This submission cannot be accepted because it was specifically mentioned in the initial version that complaints were made to Savitri, Ex-Pradhan.
37. Kamlesh (PW5) stated that Lata Devi was her cousin, being the daughter of her Massi (Maternal Aunt). Lata Devi resided in her neighbourhood. Lata Devi used to complain that the accused was beating her occasionally. She stated in her cross-examination that her mother and mother of Lata Devi are real sisters. Pooja was residing with her parents in her home, and she started residing with Kanta Devi after the death of her mother. She was not aware when the statement of Pooja was recorded by the police. Pooja had gone to the house of the accused one day before the date of the incident. She was 31 2025:HHC:16788 frequently visiting the house of her maternal aunt. She denied that she was making a false statement.
38. Her testimony is natural and corroborates the statement of Kanta Devi (PW11). Nothing was shown in her cross-examination that she had any motive to depose falsely against the accused.
39. Satish (PW4) did not support the prosecution's case. He stated that he visited the Tribhuni temple on 22.6.2008 with the accused. He could not say whether Pooja (PW2) was at home on that day. The accused had asked him to distribute the meat of the sacrificed goat amongst the villagers. When he reached the house, the doors were open, and nobody was present in the house. He saw the dead body of Lata Devi hanging in a tree at a distance of 100 metres. The accused was present in the house of Dil Bahadur (DW1). He informed about the discovery of the dead body. He was permitted to be cross-examined. He denied that he saw Pooja (PW2) watching TV in her room. He denied that he had inquired from Pooja about Lata Devi, who replied that Lata Devi was not at home. He denied that he and Pooja searched for Lata Devi. He denied that he was making a false statement. He denied the previous statement recorded by the police. He stated in his 32 2025:HHC:16788 cross-examination by learned counsel for the defence that there was a fair in the temple of Tribhuni. Many people had gathered at the fair. The vehicle in which the accused was travelling met him on the way, and he requested a lift.
40. The testimony of this witness will not make the prosecution's case suspect. He denied the presence of Pooja in the house, but the presence of Pooja (PW2) is duly established by other evidence. Further, he was contradicted by his previous statement wherein he had deposed about the presence of Pooja. Thus, he is shown to have made two inconsistent statements, and his credibility has been impeached. Therefore, his testimony cannot be used to discard the prosecution's case.
41. It was submitted that the statements of prosecution witnesses are vague and general, and no particulars of time and date were given. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Raj Khetta (supra). This judgment will not help the accused because Pooja and Veena have specifically deposed that the accused had pulled the drawstring of the salwar of Lata Devi in the presence of the labourers. It was a specific incident meant to humiliate Lata Devi in the presence of labourers. This incident corroborates the statements of the 33 2025:HHC:16788 prosecution witnesses that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased on trivial matters.
42. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the accused had treated the deceased with cruelty. Hence, the accused was rightly convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.
43. Learned Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and was directed to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-. This is not excessive, keeping in view the manner in which the accused had humiliated the deceased in the presence of labourers, and no interference is required with the sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court.
44. No other point is urged.
45. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
46. Records be sent back forthwith along with a copy of the judgment. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 30th May, 2025 (Chander)