DEVI DUTT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONVICT Girish Chandra (husband) has come up through appeal No. 111 of 2003 while convicts Devi Dutt (father -in -law), Smt. Dropadi Devi (mother -in -law) and Gokulanand (elder brother -in -law) have come up through appeal No. 95 of 2003. Deceased Deepa, a young lady of 20 years, was married just six months before she died in the outskirts of her in -laws village. On 24.12.2001, her dead body was found hanging from the branch of a tree in jungle. Accused persons were charged for the offence of section 304 -B IPC with an alternative charge for the offence of section 306 IPC. They were also charged for the offence of section 498 -A IPC. Learned Sessions Judge, at the culmination of trial, was of the view that no offence u/s. 304 -B or 306 IPC was made out against the accused persons, so he acquitted them for those sections, but at the same time, the court below found that the 2 accused persons treated the deceased with cruelty. So, they were convicted for the offence u/s. 498 -A IPC.

(2.) SINCE the appellants stood acquitted from the offences of section 304B and 306 IPC, and the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal, this Court is constraint in restraining itself to make any observation or giving any finding in respect of those offences.

(3.) BESIDES , PW5 Dr. Surendra Ram, who conducted autopsy on the body of victim, has deposed that on the body of victim, a ligature mark was found on the front portion of neck below the chin, obliquely upward following the right lower jaw reaching the mastoid process behind the ear. So the said ligature mark shows that she breathed her last on account of asphyxia as a result of hanging. In addition, only a single little lacerated wound in second finger of left foot of deceased was noticed which could have occurred at the time of rubbing her foot by force, while writhing in pains, due to asphyxia. Had she been beaten before being hanged to the branch of said tree, then certainly there would have been some injuries on the apparent look of her dead body but no such injury was found by the doctor conducting Autopsy. Even the first information report divulges that on 23.12.2001, the victim went to collect firewood in the jungle along with two other daughters -in -law of same matrimonial house. But the victim did not return with them and on 24.12.2001, her dead body was found hanging in such state in the jungle. In the deep hilly forest, it is quite natural that if three ladies would go to jungle, then at times, they may scatter not to be seen by each other. So, the possibility cannot be ruled out that in that desolate situation, where she could not be seen by any of her two accompanying ladies, she hanged herself. In that case the court below has not attributed any guilt upon the appellants u/s. 306 IPC by taking presumption u/s. 113 -A of the Indian Evidence Act, and as stated earlier, in such eventuality, this Court cannot punish the appellants for the offence u/s. 306 IPC.