Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Yog Raj on 5 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ2033
Author: R.L. Khurana
Bench: R.L. Khurana
JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.
1. Respondent Yog Raj was tried for the offences under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A, Indian Penal Code before the Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lauhal-Spiti Districts at Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 24 of 1991. By judgment dated 3-8-92, the respondent was acquitted. This judgment has been assailed by the State through this appeal.
2. The deceased Smt. Reena Devi was the daughter of PW Chuni Lal resident of village Dharda, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. She was married to the respondent according to Hindu rites on 23-2-90.
3. On 24-9-90 a younger brother of the respondent informed the parents of the deceased about the deceased having consumed poison and having been admitted in the hospital at Raiti in a precarious condition. On the receipt of such information, the parents of the deceased accompanied by the Pradhan and the Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat and several other persons went to Raiti Hospital. From there, they came to know about the deceased having been shifted to the District Hospital, Mandi. The parents of the deceased along with other persons then went to District Hospital, Mandi, where they found the deceased lying admitted in an unconscious state and in a precarious condition. The deceased died at District Hospital, Mandi at about 2.30 p.m. on the following day, that is, 25-9-1990.
4. On the basis of the complaint Ext. PB made by PW Chuni Lal, the father of the deceased on 25-9-90, a case under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code came to be registered at Police Station, Balh, District Mandi, vide First Information Report No. 208/90. During the course of investigation, the dead-body was subjected to post-mortem and it was revealed that the deceased had died due to organophasphorus group of insecticide. It was further revealed during the course of investigation that the respondent at the time of marriage had refused to accept any dowry. The deceased was being treated well by the respondent for about two years after the marriage. Thereafter his treatment towards the deceased started changing and he started ill-treating and harassing the deceased in order to pressurise her to bring a sum of Rs. 15.000/- as dowry from her parents. The respondent, who at the relevant time was working as a Craft Teacher at Government High School, Lanacheta, District Sirmour had developed illicit relations with a lady teacher and he was harassing the deceased by comparing her with the said lady teacher. Thus on a case having been found against the respondent, he was, accordingly, arrested, challenged and sent up for trial for the offences under Sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code.
5. The respondent did not plead guilty to the charges framed against him. The prosecution in support of its case in order to bring home the offences against the respondent examined as many as 12 witnesses. The case of the respondent in his statement under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure was of denial simpliciter.
6. The Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the material placed before him during the course of the trial, came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove a case against the respondent. He, accordingly, vide the impugned judgment, acquitted the respondent of the Offences charged against him.
7. We have heard Sh. A.K. Chaudhary, the learned Assistant Advocate General for the State/appellant and Sh. M.S. Chandel, the learned counsel for the respondent, and have also gone through the record of the case.
8. As had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226 : (1991 Cri LJ 1713), before a person can be convicted for the offence under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the following:-
(1) That the death of the deceased was caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (2) That such death had occurred within seven years of the marriage of the deceased; (3) That the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and (4) That such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with the demand for dowry.
9. Admittedly, the deceased Smt. Reena Devi had died unnatural death by poisoning within seven years of her marriage with the respondent. The learned Asstt. Advocate General, has, therefore, contended that in view of the fact that deceased had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage with the respondent, the presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act would be attracted and it will have to be presumed that the respondent had caused the dowry death of deceased Smt. Reena Devi. We are not in agreement with the contention of the learned Assistant Advocate General. Before, a presumption under Section 113-B, Evidence Act can be raised, the prosecution has necessarily to prove that soon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry. (See : Guruditta Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1992 Cri LJ 309 (Raj).)
10. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that the deceased soon before her death was being subjected to cruelty or harassment by the respondent for or in connection with the demand for dowry. Though, the prosecution has averred that the respondent had demanded dowry of Rs. 15,000/- and he was treating the deceased with cruelty in order to force her to bring the said amount from her parents, no evidence worthy of credence has been led in the present case.
11. Admittedly, the respondent at the relevant time was posted in Government High School, Lanacheta in District Sirmour. The respondent is a resident of village Bandhuya under Police Station, Balh of District Mandi. His parental house is situated in the said village. It is in the evidence of the prosecution that after the marriage, the deceased had lived with the respondent at the place of his posting only for a period of 18 days. No evidence is forthcoming with regard to the period, the deceased had lived with the respondent in village Bandhuya, District Mandi. Therefore, there appears to have been no occasion for the respondent to treat the deceased with cruelty on account of dowry. Even otherwise, the evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the demand of Rs. 15,000/- is self-contradictory. P.W.1 Chuni Lal, the father of the deceased in his examination-in-chief has stated that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was demanded from him by the respondent through his daughter, the deceased, two months after the marriage. As stated above, the marriage took place on 23-2-90. Therefore, according to P.W.I, the demand for Rs. 15,000/- was made by the respondent sometime in the month of April or May, 1990. P.W.I during the course of cross-examination has contradicted himself by stating that the amount of Rs. 15.000/- was demanded from him by his daughter on 21-9-90, when she had visited his house along with the respondent. He has further gone to the extent of stating that the amount of Rs. 15,000/ - was demanded by the deceased from her mother and not from him and that he was told about such demand only by his wife. In view of the contradictory version with regard to the demand of Rs. 1.5,000/- as dowry coming in the evidence of the prosecution itself, the Sessions Judge had rightly discarded the evidence.
12. Even if, it be assumed that a demand of Rs. 15,000/- was made by the respondent, such mere demand will not bring the case either within the ambit of Section 304-B or Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, in the absence of evidence that the deceased was being treated with cruelty on account of such demand. P. W. 1 Chuni Lal has nowhere stated about the deceased being ill-treated or harassed by the respondent on account of dowry. P.W.2 Smt. Dropti, the mother of the deceased has stated that she was told by the deceased two months after the marriage about the ill-treatment being meted out to her by the respondent. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that she never complained about what was stated to her by the deceased either to her husband or to anybody else. P.W.3 Kumari Neesha, the sister of the deceased, though, has stated that she was told by the deceased about the demand of Rs. 15,000/ - having been made by the respondent, she has not stated anything about the ill-treatment or harassment being caused to the deceased by the respondent.
13. During the course of evidence, a story has been introduced by P.W.1 Chuni Lal and P.W.2 Smt. Dropti, that once the deceased had found a dead lizard in the milk and that she suspected of some foul-play at the hands of the respondent and his parents. This part of the story stands belied in view of the fact that according to P.W.2, the dead-lizard was detected by the deceased when she had prepared and served the tea to the respondent as well as his parents. If that be so, it cannot be said that the dead-lizard was put in the milk in order to kill the deceased, since the tea prepared from such milk was served to the respondent as well as his parents.
14. The story of the prosecution that the respondent was having illicit relations with a lady colleagues of a school, also does not stand establish. It has come in evidence that some threatening letters were received by the respondent from the husband of the said lady-colleagues. Such letters are purported to have read even by the deceased. No such letter has been produced in the present case nor any independent evidence has been led to prove the; illicit relations of the respondent with a lady Colleague.
15. Considering the entire evidence coming on the record, we hold that the Sessions Judge has taken a reasonable view of the facts of the case, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent and no interference under Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure is called for.
16. As a result, we see no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.