STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. INDERJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, dated 30.4.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 306 and 498A I.P.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 27.6.2001, a rapat was lodged by the police of Police Station Barsar, District Hamirpur, on the basis of telephonic information that one lady Pooja Devi has died due to burning. On the receipt of this information, Police Officer went to the spot and found that dead body of Pooja Devi wife of Inderjit (respondent) was lying on a cot in a burnt condition. On investigation it was found that the marriage of Pooja Devi was performed with the respondent two years ago. The deceased was in love with the respondent and they wanted to marry. The family of the deceased was opposing this marriage, but when it was learnt from PW -2 Damyanti Devi, mother of the deceased, that the deceased was pregnant for the last four months, they gave consent for the marriage. The respondent was working in STD Booth and the deceased 'smother called the father of the respondent for the marriage, who told them that they will have to spend a sum of Rs. 22,000/ -as expenses of the marriage to be incurred at Delhi. It was alleged that they paid the money and marriage took place at Delhi and the deceased lived with the respondent at Delhi for about one month and then came to village Dhabiri. In January, 2000, the deceased gave birth to a male child and they visited the village and stayed there. During her last visit, the deceased informed his mother and brother that the respondent and his parents used to maltreat her and do not provide sufficient food. Thereafter also, after 7 months, the deceased informed PW -1 Ansuya Parshad on phone about the beatings and no food being given to her. The father of the deceased went to the village and pacified the deceased, who told him not to say anything to her in -laws about the maltreatment. The deceased and her husband stayed in private accommodation and the parents of the deceased helped her and then the respondent demanded a sum of ' One Lac for purchase of plot. It was further alleged that the deceased and her husband did not visit the village on the marriage of her younger sister, which was performed in February, 2001. There used to be continuous quarrel of the deceased and accused. The respondent visited their house alongwith landlady requested to be pardoned and the deceased was brought to his native village. After 15 days they learnt that the deceased was serious and learnt about her death subsequently. Statement of the brother of the deceased was recorded as Ext. PW1/A.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.