Satyen Vaidya, Judge

1. Both these appeals have arisen from a single judgment dated 21.01.2012; therefore, both are being decided by a common judgment.

2. It will be convenient for the sake of clarity to hereafter refer to the accused Ranjit Kumar as the appellant.

3. Appellant was tried for offences under section 498-A and 306 IPC. Vide judgment dated 21.01.2012 and sentence order dated 23.01.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 29-B/VII-2010 the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 498A IPC and acquitted for offence under section 306 IPC.

4. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

5. Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 2012 has been filed by the appellant/accused against his conviction under section 498-A IPC, whereas, Cr. Appeal No. 268 of 2012 has been filed by the State against acquittal of accused under section 306 IPC.

5. Brief facts on which the prosecution case rested are that one Nimmo was married to the appellant in the month of May, 2009. On 14.3.2010 the said Nimmo committed suicide by hanging. The factum of death of Nimmo was reported by the family members of the appellant to PW-3 Smt. Tara Thakur, who was the President of the Gram Panchayat. She further reported the matter to police.

6. Police recorded the statement of PW-1 Smt. Kanta Devi under Section 154 Cr.P.C in which the maltreatment of her daughter by the appellant was specifically alleged. The cause of suicide by Nimmo was also attributed to her maltreatment at the hands of appellant. It was alleged that after the marriage, the appellant repeatedly had been inflicting beatings to the deceased after consuming alcohol. As per Smt. Kanta Devi, the parents of the appellant were not involved and in fact whenever the complaints were made to parents of the appellant about the conduct of appellant, they had admitted the maltreatment of deceased at the hands of the appellant and had been assuring to bring the appellant to terms. It was also mentioned that the deceased had visited her house a number of times after having received beatings from the appellant.

7. On the basis of statement Ext. PW-1/A, formal FIR Ext. PW-10/A was registered. The body of deceased was subjected to postmortem examination. The postmortem report Ext. PW-7/B was obtained, according to which, the cause of death was asphyxia by anti-mortem hanging. No external injury other than a ligature mark on the neck of deceased was found on her person.

8. On completion of investigation, the challan was presented. The prosecution examined total 13 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not lead any defence evidence.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

10. Ms. Kanta Thakur Advocate learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the conviction of appellant recorded by learned trial Court deserves to be set-aside. She further contended that the evidence led by the prosecution was not trustworthy for the reasons firstly that all the witnesses were interested in seeing the conviction of the appellant as they were closely related to the deceased and secondly the testimonies of these witnesses if read as a whole were not at all confidence inspiring. She also pointed out various embellishments in the deposition of PW-1 Smt. Kanta Devi.

11. The record reveals that the prosecution relied upon the statements of PW-1 Kanta Devi (mother of deceased), PW-2 Raj Kumar (father of deceased), PW-4 Bhuri Singh (grand-father of deceased) and PW-5 Kashmir Singh (Uncle of deceased).

12. On scrutinizing the statements of the above witnesses, we have found these statements to be wanting in many respects. The entire thrust of all these witnesses has been to complain that the appellant was a drunkard and under the influence of intoxication he used to maltreat the deceased and repeatedly gave beatings to her. Before going into the details of their statements, it is relevant to notice that till the death of deceased Nimmo, no complaint had ever been made either by the deceased herself or her parents or any other relative to any authority including the Panchayat.

13. It is strongly alleged against the appellant that he repeatedly had been inflicting beatings upon the deceased.

Nothing is there to corroborate the above version either by way of any medical evidence or any other witness except the witnesses closely related to the deceased.

14. The marriage between the appellant and deceased had taken place in the month of May, 2009. The suicide was committed on 14.3.2010. The matrimonial relationship between the appellant and deceased survived for a period of about ten months. One of the allegations is that the maltreatment of deceased had started just about one month after the marriage. That being so, it is highly improbable that no complaint whatsoever was made either by the deceased or her parents to any authority for such a long period, more so, keeping in view the amount of maltreatment received by the deceased, as alleged.

15. Another fact that has been established on record is regarding the pregnancy of deceased. As per PW-1 Smt. Kanta Devi, the deceased was carrying a pregnancy of about eight months. In case the deceased had been receiving beatings throughout the stage of her pregnancy, more likely than not, it would have affected the fetus also, but nothing in this regard has been brought on record.

16. It can also be seen that the deceased must have been seeking medical advice and aid during the pregnancy. No investigation appears to have been carried to seek corroboration to the version of complainant by examining the medical practitioner or health worker advising or aiding the deceased during the pregnancy.

17. Even the autopsy surgeon had not noticed any injury on the body of deceased, whereas, the complainant had alleged that a day prior to the commission of suicide by the deceased, she had again complained of being beaten by the appellant under intoxication.

18. Now coming to the statements of the close relatives of the deceased, we find that maternal grand-father of deceased PW-4 Bhuri Singh did not apparently support the prosecution case and he was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. His statement, therefore, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.

19. As regards the statements of parents of the deceased, a glaring contradiction has been pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant. According to PW-1 Smt. Kanta Devi, she alongwith her husband, sister Punya Devi and sister’s husband Kashmir Singh had visited the matrimonial house of deceased to make complaint against the conduct of the appellant. PW-2 Raj Kumar (father of deceased) has not supported the aforesaid version of PW-1. He stated that the above persons had visited the house of appellant in relation with marriage ceremony. As per PW-2, the aforesaid persons had not visited the house of appellant for the purpose as suggested by PW-1. He further stated that the factum of maltreatment of deceased by the appellant was disclosed to him by his wife, PW-1 Smt. Kanta Devi.

20. It can further be seen that even PW-1 (mother of deceased) had made material improvements from her previous statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., while deposing in the Court. Learned defence counsel had confronted her with previous statement Ext. PW-1/A and many material facts were not found recorded in the first version of PW-1. The factum that the mother of appellant had admitted about the conduct of the appellant and had advised PW-1 to take the deceased to her house has been found introduced by PW-1 in her statement before the Court for the first time. To similar effect is her version with respect to admission made by the family members of the appellant and their assurance to keep the deceased in good stead. PW-1 had also introduced a new fact that on the festival of Holi, the appellant had visited the village of PW-1, but had not visited her house and had taken away deceased alongwith him, as no such fact was not found incorporated in her earlier version recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. PW-1 had also deposed that the appellant had visited her house under intoxicated state and had given slaps to the deceased in her presence. This part of statement has also been found to be an embellishment.

21. In above circumstances, the statement of PW-5 Kashmir Singh (Uncle of deceased) can also not be taken at its face value. He also submitted that the deceased had complained to him about her maltreatment at the hands of the appellant on telephone. However, he never made any complaint to anyone. He also made mention about his visit in the company of other relatives of deceased to the house of the appellant for complaining against his conduct, but the same again is in contradiction to the version given by the father of deceased.

22. Another fact which has drawn our attention is unequivocal statements of PW-1 and PW-2 whereby they admitted that the deceased had visited her parental house alongwith appellant a large number of times after marriage. According to PW-1, the deceased had made such visits for 8-10 times. As per PW-2, such visits were for about 15-20 times. As noticed above, the matrimonial life of deceased with the appellant was only for a period about 10 months. A large number of visits by the appellant to the house of his in-laws during such short duration, that too with the deceased speaks a lot about his conduct.

23. The fact that the Investigating Officer could not get any corroboration to the version of close relatives of deceased from any independent source also creates a suspicion as to genuineness and veracity of the version put-forth by PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5.

24. Section 498A IPC reads as under:

“498A. Husband or relative of 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 fine.

Explanation. —For the purpose 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 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.”

25. The acts of “cruelty” as alleged against the appellant have not been established beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden in accordance with law.

26. In light of above discussion, we do not concur with the findings and conclusions drawn by learned trial Court.

27. In result, Cr. Appeal No. 42 of 2012 is accepted and Cr. Appeal No. 268 of 2012 filed by the State is dismissed. The judgment dated 21.01.2012 and sentence order dated 23.01.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in Sessions Case No. 29-B/VII- 2010, are set-aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges.

28. The appellant/accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial) of this Court strictly in terms of provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

29. Both the appeals stand disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

30. Records be returned back to the learned trial Court forthwith.