Kamlesh Sharma, J.@mdashThis appeal at the instance of State of Himachal Pradesh is against judgment dated 25.8.1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Hamipur, whereby the Respondents were acquitted of offences under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. Respondent Dharmi Devi is the mother-in-law, Respondent Ranbir Singh is the brother-in-law and Respondent Rabel Singh is the husband of deceased Sheela Devi, who had committed suicide by consuming pesticides on 17.9.1987, within a period of 1-1/2 years from her marriage, which was solemnized on 19.4.1996. Criminal case against the Respondents was registered under Sections 306 and 498A, I.P.C. at Police Station Barsar on the complaint filed by Inder Singh PW-1, the uncle of deceased Sheela Devi, that she was being harassed and mal-treated by the Respondents for bringing less dowry, which had forced her to commit suicide.
2. The Respondents in their statements u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure had admitted the case of the prosecution to the extent that marriage of deceased Sheela Devi with Respondent Rabel Singh was solemnized on 19.4.1986 and she had given birth to a son in January 1987. It is further admitted by the Respondents that on 17.9.1987 deceased Sheela Devi has committed suicide by consuming pesticides and died on the same day at 12.30 p.m. in the Hospital at Baragaon despite best medical treatment provided to her. However, they denied the allegations of harassment or mal-treatment on any count, much less for the demand of dowry. In defence they have examined four witnesses. Inder Singh DW-1, one of their neighbours, who has stated that 4-5 days before the occurrence Respondent-Ranbir Singh was away to Barsar for appearing in his Matriculation Examination. According to him, the Respondents had never treated deceased Sheela Devi with cruelty for demand of dowry or otherwise. He has further stated that deceased Sheela Devi was of sensitive nature and used to take ill of minor matters. He has denied that deceased Sheela Devi was ever given beating by Respondent Dharmi Devi. Similarly, Soma Devi DW-2 and Sukh Ram DW-3, two of the neighbours of the Respondents, have deposed that deceased Sheela Devi was living happily with the Respondents and she had never complained to them about her being treated with cruelty by the Respondents. Sukh Ram DW-3 has also denied that at any point by time deceased Sheela Devi had disclosed to him that Respondent Ranbir Singh had tried to outrage her modesty. Dharam Singh DW-4 is the brother of Respondent-Dharmi Devi, who resides at a distance of 20 Kilometres from the village of the Respondents. He was denied that Respondent-Dharmi Devi had visited his house 2 or 3 months prior to the death of Sheela Devi, more precisely, in July 1987. From the statements of these witnesses, the Respondents have tried to counter the statement made in the letters Ex. PG and PH by deceased Sheela Devi that she had disclosed the incident of 12.8.1987 to her neighbours, namely, Sukh Ram DW-3 and two ladies residing in the house opposite to her house, when Respondent Ranbir Singh had tried to outrage her modesty by pressurising her to have illicit relations with him taking the benefit of the absence of Respondent-Dharmi Devi, who had gone to the house of her brother Dharam Singh DW-4.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution has produced as many as 32 witnesses. Daily Diary Report No. 15 dated 17.9.1987 in respect of the death of Sheela Devi in Government Hospital, Baragaon as a result of her committing suicide after consuming pesticides, written by Constable Ghanyia Lal PW-21 at the instance of Nank Chand PW-5, was produced by constable Milkhi Ram PW-4. Nanak Chand PW-5 is one of the neighbours of the Respondents and his house is at a distance of 45 yards from their house. He was categorically denied that the Respondents had ever treated deceased Sheela Devi with cruelty for demand of dowry or otherwise. According to him, the father of Respondents Ranbir Singh and Rabel Singh is Ex-service Man and owns land measuring 35-36 kanals, though he has admitted that Sheela Devi had left the house of her in-laws twice. Bidhi Singh PW-12 Up-Pardhan and Lachhman Singh PW-13 Pardhan of Gram Panchayat Jamli, who had associated with the investigation, Lekh Ram PW-14, one of the villagers of the village of the Respondents, have stated that neither deceased Sheela Devi nor her parents had ever complained to them that she was being harassed and mal-treated by the Respondents for the demand of dowry. Bidhi Singh PW-12 and Lekh Ram PW-14 have produced and proved statement Ex. PL of deceased Sheela Devi taken into possession by recovery memo Ex. PR, which was written by Respondent Rabel Singh, signed by deceased Sheela Devi and witnessed by them on 7.8.1987 at village Jamli that she would not repeat the mistake of leaving her matrimonial home without informing anyone and if she would do so her in-laws would not be responsible and also that if they would ill-treat her she would make complaint to the persons in whose presence she had made this writing. Bidhi Chand PW-12 has further stated that deceased Sheela Devi was removed to Hospital at Baragaon with the help of Shiv Ram, the father of Respondents Ranbir Singh and Rabel Singh, as they were away to Barsar and Jalandhar respectively, where she had dies at 12.30 p.m. on the same day despite best treatment given to her. He has also stated that immedietely thereafter the parents of deceased Sheela Devi were informed of her death.
4. Another witness Baljit Singh PW-30, who is first cousin of Respondents Ranbir Singh and Rabel Singh, has stated that on the day of occurrence at about 9.00 a.m. he had heard Respondent Dharmi Devi telling deceased Sheela Devi that she should not take meals while preparing the same and soon thereafter he heard the cries of Respondent Dharmi Devi that Sheela Devi had taken some medicine of the type of insecticides and her husband Shiv Ram directed him to go to Dispensary at Baragaon to bring a doctor, which he had complied with but the doctor refused to accompany him and asked him to bring the patient to the Dispensary. This witness has denied that the Respondents had ever harassed or mal-treated deceased Sheela Devi for demand of dowry or otherwise.
5. The prosecution has produced Piar Chand PW-18, one of the neighbours of the Respondents, who had brought Doctor Ranbir Singh PW-19 at the instance of Respondent-Dharmi Devi for the treatment of deceased Sheela Devi. Ranbir Singh PW-19 has stated that when he examined Sheela Devi on the day of occurrence, her blood pressure was very low, she was unconscious and vomiting, and he had administered her injection of Koramine and gave her salty water and thereafter advised her parents-in-law to take her to hospital. Doctor P.K. Sharma PW-20 had given her treatment when deceased Sheela Devi was admitted in hospital at Baragaon and also conducted post-mortem on her dead body after her death. In his opinion, she had died due to consumption of Alphosphide pesticide.
6. From the statements of these witnesses, it is proved that when deceased Sheela Devi consumed pesticide, only her mother-in-law Respondent, Dharmi Devi and father-in-law Shiv Ram were present in the house and they had immediately raised alarmsent for doctor and removed her to Government Hospital at Baragaon and also informed her parents immediately after her death. This shows that the act and conduct of Respondent-Dharmi Devi, present at the time of occurrence, was above-board and without any blemish of suspicion, which makes the prosecution story doubtful.
7. So far the allegations of subjecting deceased Sheela Devi to cruelty by putting her to harassment with a view to coerce her to bring dowry or to mal-treat her for any other reason, are concerned, reference to the statements of Inder Singh PW-1 (uncle), Siri Ram PW-2 (father), Bansi Lal PW-3 (uncle), Parkasho Devi PW-7 (cousin-sister), Shankri Devi PW-8 (mother) and Man Singh PW-15 (brother) is necessary. Though all of them have vaguely stated that deceased Sheela Devi was being harassed and mal-treated for demand of dowry but they have not been able to point out any specific instance in support thereof. Inder Singh PW-1 has made the following allegations in his statement u/s 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/1 was registered:
(1) That Dharmi Devi and Ranbir Singh had been harassing and maltreating Sheela Devi;
(2) Whenever Sheela Devi complained that the accused mal-treated and gave beating to her, Dharmi Devi accused had been ignoring it telling that she was telling a lie;
(3) He mother-in-law (Dahrmi Devi) also gave beating to Sheela Devi;
(4) In August 1987 Dharmi Devi and Ranbir Singh gave beating to Sheela Devi and therefore, she had gone to the house of her Massar Bansi Lal at Kalka. Rabel Singh who was in service at Jalandhar at that time was contacted on phone and then Sheela Devi was sent back to her in-laws with Rabel Singh and his father Shiv Ram;
(5) Once Sheela Devi was preparing meals when she was given beating by Dharmi Devi;
(6) Dharmi Devi was not allowing Sheela Devi the access to her child Sunny and thus she was deprived of the love and affection of her minor son Sunny;
(7) Dharmi Devi and Ranbir Singh had been taunting her for bringing less dowry in marriage.
8. In his deposition in the Court, he has not deposed in respect of allegations at serial Nos. 2,5 and 6, whereas, his allegations at serial Nos. 1,3 and 7 are of general type and allegation at serial No. 4 pertains to an incident in August 1987, which has not been proved as alleged by the statements of Bidhi Chand PW-12 and Lekh Ram PW-14, who were signatories to the writing Ex. PL of deceased Sheela Devi wherein she had admitted that she had left the house of her in-laws by mistake. Shiv Ram PW-2 and Shankri Devi PW-8 father and mother of deceased Sheela Devi have not concurred in their statements in respect of the complaint of demand of dowry made to them by deceased Sheela Devi when she had visited them at one point of time along with Rabel Singh her husband and the other point of time along with Shiv Ram her father-in-law, who were not confronted with the said complaint. So far Man Singh PW-15, the brother of deceased Sheela Devi is concerned, he has not made any specific allegation of cruelty meted out to deceased Sheela Devi by the Respondents, except to produce letter dated 14.8.1987 Ex. PH written to him by deceased Sheela Devi.
9. Bansi Lal PW-3 is the uncle of deceased Sheela Devi, to whose house she had gone on 2.8.1987 with the request to take her to her husband Rabel Singh at Jalandhar as Respondent Dharmi Devi her mother-in-law and Respondent Ranbir Singh her brother-in-law were harassing her and had a plan to kill her within 4-5 days. However, on receipt of his phone call Respondent Rabel Singh had come along with his father Shiv Ram and had taken deceased Sheela Devi to their home Parkasho Devi PW-7 besides corroborating Bansi Lal PW-3 has stated that deceased Sheela Devi had complained to her that her husband Rabel Singh was not happy with the dowry given in her marriage, when they had met in May 1987 but this part of her statement is definitely an improvement as it was not found in her statement u/s 151, Code of Criminal Procedure Ex. PW-7/A.
10. So far the circumstances under which deceased Sheela Devi had gone to the house of Bansi Lal PW-3 at Kalka are concerned, these have been proved from the writing Ex. PL produced and proved by Bidhi Chand PW-12 and Lekh Ram PW-14 and the statements of Bansi Lal PW-3 and Parkasho Devi PW-7 in respect thereof are not worthy of reliance. However, even if it is admitted that there was no love-lost between deceased Sheela Devi and the Respondents, it cannot be presumed that their conduct was such as to drive her to commit suicide or they were harassing her with a view to coerce her to meet their demand of dowry.
11. So far Respondents Ranbir Singh and Rabel Singh are concerned, it has been proved on record that they were not present in the house at the time of occurrence, as such, their acts and conduct of omission and commission could not be the cause of either instigation or aid to suicide committed by Sheela Devi.
12. Lastly, we will deal with two letters Ex. PC and PH dated 14.8.1987, which were posted on 16.9.1987 and reached their destination after the death of Sheela Devi. No doubt, these letters are proved to be in the handwriting of deceased Sheela Devi by Shri M.L. Sharma PW-29. Questioned Documents Examiner, and clearly pointed out that on 12.8.1987, five days after deceased Sheela Devi was brought back from Kalka, Respondent Ranbir Singh had tried to pressurise her for having illicit relations with him, for which she had complained to Shiv Ram, her father-in-law, who was present in the house at that time and later to Respondent-Dharmi Devi on her return, yet on the basis of these letters it cannot be held that the Respondents had abetted in committing suicide by Sheela Devi. Had letter Ex. PH been received by Respondent Rabel Singh, the husband, and he would not have come home to redress the grievances of deceased Sheela Devi, as stated therein, it could be said that his omission to do so had contributed in her taking extreme step of committing suicide.
13. So far Respondent Dharmi Devi, the mother-in-law, is concerned, admittedly she was not at home on 12.8.1987, the day of alleged occurrence, and when she returned home and deceased Sheela Devi complained to her, she had immediately sent Respondent Ranbir Singh away to Barsar in connection with preparation of his examination and assured her that she would talk to him after his examination. From the totality of facts and circumstances on record, it appears that deceased Sheela Devi was hypersensitive and used to take her heart day-to-day skirmishes of family, that is why she took the extreme step of committing suicide by taking poison when Respondent Dharmi Devi checked her from eating meals while preparing the same, which fact has been proved by Baljit Singh PW-30 and Inder Singh DW-1.
14. In this background, even the alleged conduct of Respondent-Ranbir Singh to make overtures to deceased Sheela Devi to have illicit relations with him cannot be held his wilful conduct, which was likely to drive deceased Sheela Devi to commit suicide, more so, when she did not post letters Exts. PG and PH for more than one month. Above all, the glaring facts mentioned in these letters that deceased Sheela Devi had disclosed this incident to her neighbours, namely, Sukh Ram DW-3 and two ladies residing in the house opposite to her house, one of them, namely, Soma Devi as appeared as DW-2, have been falsified, which creates serious doubt about the contents of these letters. Not only this, even the close relations of deceased Sheela Devi, who have appeared as PWs, have not stated this fact in their statements. The prosecution has also not made these allegations as basis of its case to hold the Respondents guilty of cruelty as well as abatement to suicide.
15. The result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the Respondents are discharged.
