STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 30.09.2000 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

(2.) THE deceased Krishna Devi was married to the accused Atma Ram. They had been married for about 22 years and had two grown up sons aged about 18 -20 years. On 23.5.1999 Krishna Devi suffered injuries and was first taken to Primary Health Centre at Ratti for treatment from there she was removed to the Zonal Hospital at Mandi and finally to the Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla. Unfortunately, Krishna Devi could not survive and died. On 23.5.1999 itself Leela Devi, mother of Krishna Devi, lodged a complaint with the police to the effect that her son -in -law i. e. accused used to ill -treat her daughter Krishna Devi. Her grand daughter was telephonically informed by the accused that Krishna Devi is unconscious and therefore, she (Leela Devi) had been called. She went to the village of the accused but in the meantime Krishna Devi had been shifted to CHC at Ratti. When she reached Ratti she came to know that her daughter had been shifted to the hospital at Mandi. When they came to Mandi her daughter could not speak to her.

(3.) THE first person who reached the house of the accused and deceased Krishna Devi was PW -8 Rukmani, who is the sister -in -law of the accused. According to her at about 10 -11 a.m. when she came to the house, Krishna was lying in the middle of the courtyard, which was a common courtyard. On her asking Krishna informed the witness that she had fallen down and requested the witness (Rukmani) to give her a bath. Thereafter this witness and her husband 'ssecond wife took Krishna Devi to their house, took off her clothes and gave a bath to her and after changing her clothes made her lie on the bed. The deceased was declared hostile and cross -examined by the public prosecutor. She denied the suggestion made to her that it was the accused who had given the beatings to his wife Krishna. She, in fact, in cross -examination stated that Krishna had consumed liquor.