Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Parvinder Singh @ Pamma & Others on 19 May, 2016
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 2011
.
Judgment reserved on : 2.05.2016
Date of Decision : May 19 , 2016
State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant
of
Versus
Parvinder Singh @ Pamma & others
rt ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice, Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No. 1
For the appellant : Mr. R. S. Verma, Addl. Advocate General with
Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Puneet Rajta, Dy.
A.G. for the appellant/State.
For the respondent : Mr. V. S. Rathore, Advocate, for the
respondents.
Sanjay Karol, J.
Assailing the judgment dated 25.8.2011, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in S.C. RBT. No. 60- N/2010/08 (S.T. No. 15/11), titled as State of Himachal Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 2Pradesh vs. Parvinder Singh @ Pamma & others, whereby respondents-accused stand acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the .
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Parvinder Singh @ Pamma (accused No. 1) is the husband, Chanda Singh (accused No. 2) father-in-law, Bashala Devi (accused No. 3) mother-in-law and Narinder of Singh (accused No. 4) brother-in-law of the deceased.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that Sunita rt (deceased), daughter of Darshana Devi (PW-1), was married to accused No. 1. From the wedlock parties have two daughters and the third child was in the womb. Allegedly on account of cruelties and atrocities meted out by the accused, on 3.7.2007, deceased consumed poison. On the basis of complaint (Ext. PW-1/A) lodged by Darshana Devi (PW-1), F.I.R. No. 207 of 2007, dated 3.7.2007 (Ext. PW-
16/A) came to be registered at police station Nurpur, Distt.
Kangra, H.P. against the accused under the provisions of Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. SI Hoshiar Singh (PW-17) conducted the investigation. Post mortem was got conducted from Dr. Shiv Darshan (PW-11) and report (Ext. PW-11/B) taken on record.
Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 3 alleged crime and as such, challan was presented against them in the Court for trial.
4. Accused were charged for having committed .
offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution of examined seventeen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded, in rt which they took plea of innocence and false implication.
6. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, Court below acquitted the accused persons of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal by the State.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is well reasoned and is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 48. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution.
.
Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offences.
of
9. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36, Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under:
rt "(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words:
"Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 5 the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles .
well known and recognized in the administration of justice." "
10. Law with regard to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and abetment to of commit suicide, so as to fall within the scope of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is now well settled.
11. rt It is a settled position of law that there should be reasonable nexus between cruelty and suicide. It has to be substantiated, established and proved on record. Cruelty by itself would not amount to having committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. A reasonable nexus has to be established between cruelty and the suicide in order to make good the offence of cruelty under the penal laws. Cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. Suicide alone would not establish that it was occasioned on account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as to lead a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances to commit suicide. Mere assumption or demand of dowry by itself in given circumstances may not amount to cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object i.e. to meet any unlawful ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 6 demand. Every act of cruelty is not punishable. There must be evidence to show that soon before the death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to .
rule out the possibility of natural or accidental death so as to prove that the death had occurred otherwise than in normal circumstances. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based of on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough rt not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
12. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, the Apex Court has held that "the basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid 'cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto. In order to ascribe a meaning to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the Legislatures: Whereas explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz , (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the Legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 7 legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the .
statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of 'cruelty' in terms of section 498 (A)." .... .... ....
"Section 498-A is attributed only in the event of proof of cruelty by the husband or the relatives of the husband of the woman Admittedly, the finding of the of trial court as regards the death negated suicide with a positive finding of accidental death. If suicide is left out, then in that event question of applicability of rt explanation (a) would not arise - neither the second limb to cause injury and danger to life or limb or health would be attracted in any event the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under section 498 (A) and not de-hors the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under section 498-A. Explanation (b) of Section 498-A in no uncertain terms records harassment of the woman and the statute itself thereafter clarifies it to the effect that it is not every such harassment but only in the event of such a harassment being with a view to coerce 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 - there is total absence of any of the requirements of the statute in terms of section 498 (A)." ..... ..... ......
... ... "Charges under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are independent of each ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 8 other and acquittal of one does not lead to acquittal on the other."
"To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of .
a charge under section 498-A The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment within the meaning of explanation (b) The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not however, of bring home the charge of section 498-A against the accused Acquittal of a charge under section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground rt for acquittal under section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained."
13. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Apex Court has also held that 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 9 held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned.
14. In Sushil Kumar Sharma. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
.
(2005) 6 SCC 281, the Apex Court has held as under:
"10. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly of stated therein the increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern. The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint rt Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in-laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty.
11. One other provision which is relevant to be noted is Section 306 IPC. The basic difference between the two sections i.e. Section 306 and Section 498-A is that of intention. Under the latter, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 10
19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have .
been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-
of intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal rt vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin's weapon. If the cry of "wolf is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 11 agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalised a statement. Certain statutory .
presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable.
It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious of allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing rt with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
15. In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Apex Court has held as under:
"In a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of S. 498A, I.P.C and S. 113A of Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 12 trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the .
evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. The doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject matter.
of The conscience of the court can never be bound by any rule but that is coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise of the rt judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of the offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law."
[Emphasis supplied]
16. In the very same decision the Apex Court further cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 13 transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to .
which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied of for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
17. rt In Arun Vyas & anr. Vs. Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690, the Apex Court has held that the essence of offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the wife is subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation.
18. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 14 mental cruelty was established or not. [Mohd. Hoshan A.P. & Anrs. Vs. State of A.P. (2002) 7 SCC 414].
19. In State of A.P. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) .
15 SCC 582, the Apex Court has held as under:
"It is plain that as per clause (b) of the Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every of harassment does not amount to "cruelty" within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a rt definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C."
20. In Balram Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 338, the Apex Court has held cruelty to mean torture to be so unbearable in the common course of human conduct that a young lady having commitments to life could take a drastic steps to end her life leaving behind her infant children in the lurch and at the mercy of the accused husband who was found to be in contemplation of remarrying.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 1521. In Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 6 SCC 407, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"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.
of The same would be within the meaning of the section. Torture is a question of fact. There must be a proper effort to prove it."
rt
22. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The accused must by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct create such circumstances that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred.
A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 16 said to be instigation. [Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618]
23. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies from .
individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or of abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty and harassment in a given case. [Gananath Pattnaik vs. State of Orissa, rt (2002) 2 SCC 619]
24. Prosecution evidence has to be appreciated in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position.
25. From the testimony of Dr. Gurmeet Singh (PW-
10) and the complainant, it is evident that on 3.7.2007 Sunita was brought to the hospital by the accused persons.
At about 2.45 p.m., when the Doctor examined her, she was unconscious and gasping for breath. Police was immediately informed. MLC (Ext. PW-10/B) is on record.
26. From the testimony of Dr. Shiv Darshan (PW-11) who, alongwith the team of Doctors, conducted the post mortem, it is clear that the deceased died as a result of consumption of organo phosphorous . Report (Ext. PW-11/B) is on record to such effect.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 1727. Investigating Officer SI Hoshiar Singh (PW-17) recorded the statement of Darshana Devi (PW-1) which led to the registration of F.I.R. (Ext. PW-16/A). He recovered one .
empty bottle of Sulphos from the room of the deceased.
28. Prosecution case is not of murder. Allegedly on account of various acts of cruelty and abetment deceased consumed poison on 3.7.2007.
of
29. Whether prosecution has been able to establish such fact, beyond reasonable doubt or not, we only need to rt examine the testimonies of relatives Darshana Devi (PW-1), Meena Kumari (PW-5) and Sugreev Singh (PW-7) and other independent witnesses namely Ranjit Singh (PW-2), Vakil Singh (PW-3), Baldev Singh (PW-6) and Jeet Singh (PW-8).
Now incidentally Vakil Singh, Baldev Singh and Jeet Singh have not supported the prosecution and despite extensive cross examination nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies. They are public representatives/ government employees. Be that as it may, by ignoring their testimonies we proceed to examine the testimonies of other witnesses.
30. Darshana Devi (PW-1) states that the parties were married for more than eight years. Through the marriage, two children were born and the third child was in the womb. For the first four years of marriage, parties had ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 18 cordial relations but thereafter, all the accused started harassing her. Now what was that harassment, she clarifies by deposing that not only did they stop maintaining her but .
would often beat her. Which fact stood disclosed to her by the deceased. Fifteen days prior to the incident, deceased came to meet her and asked for `1000/-, for she had wanted her children to be admitted in a school. On one of such occasion, matter was also brought to the notice of Pradhan Ranjit Singh (PW-2) and Madan Lal. Though such rt acts of harassment continued but only for maintaining relationship, matter was not reported. On 3.7.2007 she received a call that her daughter was unwell. But in the hospital she learnt about her death. Ranjit Singh (PW-2) has tried to corroborate the version of the complaints and a meeting which took place in the house of the accused.
31. But then, from the conjoint reading of the testimonies of these witnesses, it is apparent that such meeting took place about one and a half years prior to the incident in question. Significantly Ranjit Singh is silent about the alleged acts of cruelty and harassment. Though he admits the parties to have amicably resolved the issue, but on what terms he does not disclose. He does not state who was at fault? What was the grievance? What were the terms of compromise? All this remains undisclosed.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 1932. Darshana Devi admits Chanda Singh and Bashala Devi to be agriculturists and accused Parvinder Singh to be working as a driver in Delhi. Significantly she admits both .
the children of the deceased to be studying in school. As such her earlier version of the deceased having asked for `1000/- for getting the children admitted in the school is rendered to be doubtful, more so, for the fact that she does of not categorically state whether the money stood actually paid by her or not. She also admits that at no point in time, rt the matter was reported to the police or the Panchayat. The alleged beatings given by the accused were not reported.
Also from her statement it is apparent that money could not have been an issue, for certain amount stood deposited in the name of the deceased. It was not so done by her parents. Quite apparently deceased had been insisting to stay with her husband in Delhi, for which an endeavour was being made by the accused.
33. Significantly Meena Kumari (PW-5), sister of the deceased, has come out with another version of discord.
According to her, accused demanded dowry. This witness wants the Court to believe that a meeting of Panchayat was held twice, once in the year 1998 and thereafter in the year 2006 which version of hers stands contradicted both by Darshana Devi (PW-1) and Ranjit Singh (PW-2) apart from ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 20 the fact that she is absolutely vague with regard to the time, place and outcome of such meetings. Her statement of dowry demand is a mere exaggeration and .
embellishment, not to have been recorded in her previous statement (Mark-X) with which she was confronted. But what renders her statement doubtful is the fact that she was not in touch with the deceased.
of
34. Sugreev Singh (PW-7) is the brother of the deceased. He also refers to the harassment on account of rt dowry demands. But then such version is not corroborated either by Darshana Devi or Ranjit Singh. He does refer to some compromise and the accused not mending his ways.
But then all these allegations are vague and unspecific. His version of dowry demands, apart from being vague, is a mere exaggeration, for having been made in the court for the first time, and not recorded in his earlier statement (Mark-Z) with which he was confronted. Significantly this witness records compliance of one of the terms of the compromise as Parvinder was sending money into the account of the deceased at Post Office Sadwan. It is also not his case that the children were not being maintained by the accused. He is a resident of Pathankot and met the deceased on 2.5.2007 when also no grievance was made out by the deceased, further rendering the version of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 21 Darshana Devi to be doubtful. In fact, according to this witness both accused and deceased used to love each other.
.
We find the allegations of dowry demand not to
35. be true. Insofar as cruelty and harassment are concerned, allegations are vague and unspecific apart from the fact that they were too early in point in time. Panchayat, if any, of for what ever purpose, was convened four/one and a half years prior to the occurrence of the incident. Thereafter rt what were the alleged acts of cruelty, harassment or abetment remains undisclosed. Parties were married for more than eight years. Children were young and studying in a school. Even prior to the marriage, accused Parvinder was working as a driver in Delhi and as is so admitted by Darshana Devi, deceased had desired to live with her husband in Delhi. Both the deceased and her husband were in love with each other. The reason for consuming poison cannot be said to have been proven, beyond reasonable doubt. Goadment if any, prior the death remains undisclosed.
36. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that the accused are guilty of having committed the offence, they stand charged for. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 22 unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain .
of events does not stand conclusively established, leading only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused.
37. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has of been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common rt intention subjected deceased Sunita, legally wedded wife of accused Parvinder, to cruelty or abetted her to commit suicide by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record.
38. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice.
39. The accused have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Courts below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94, since it ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP 23 cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no .
interference is warranted in the instant case.
40. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are of discharged. Records of the Courts below be sent back.
rt (Sanjay Karol),
Judge.
(Ajay Mohan Goel),
Judge.
May 19 , 2016 (PK)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:23:44 :::HCHP