STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR an offence, which is alleged to have been committed on 8.7.1996, accused were put to trial. In terms of judgment dated 31.10.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 14 of 1998/ Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1999, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh V. Sushil Kumar and Ors. accused stands acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that Pramodh Kumar alias Dev Prashad (accused No. 2) was married to Sonika (deceased), daughter of complainant Sh. Ramesh Bhardwaj (PW -1) on 24.5.1995. Pramodh Kumar was living with his mother Giano Devi (accused No. 3), brother Sushil Kumar (accused No. 1) and sister Sushma Kumari (accused No. 4). On 8.7.1996 Sh. Ramesh Bhardwaj lodged a complaint with the police that he was informed by a friend of his bother that Sonika had taken ill and was undergoing treatment at the D.M.C. Hospital, Ludhiana. He rushed for the hospital and found his daughter to be dead. Same day he lodged a report with the Police at Police Post Chintpurni to the effect that since inception of marriage accused No. 1 and 3 used to torture his daughter for having brought insufficient dowry. Two - three months after the marriage the deceased had told him about the same. On 7.7.1996 accused killed his daughter by administering poison. She was killed for having brought insufficient dowry. His suspicion was based on the fact that even though he had a telephone at his residence and his house was just at a distance of 10 - 11 kilometers from the house of the accused, yet they did not inform him about the illness. On the basis of statement (Ext. PB) police recorded F.I.R. No. 108 of 1996 (Ext. PH) dated 8.7.1996 under Section 306 Indian Penal Code at Police station, Amb. Police got post mortem conducted and obtained report (Ext. PP). As per the report deceased had died due to poisoning. Investigation revealed that accused had taken the deceased for treatment to a doctor at Chintpurni where no medical treatment could be administered to her. Consequently she was taken to a private Doctor at Gagret. At both the places, allegedly accused avoided taking her to a government hospital. From Gagret she was taken to the hospital at Ludhiana where she was declared dead. During investigation complainant discovered that police had not correctly recorded his statement (Ext. PB) as also the statement of his wife. In his statement complicity of accused No. 2 and 4 was not recorded. Consequently his wife approached this Court and filed Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1045 of 1996, titled as Smt. Sarla Rani V. State of H.P. and Ors. which stood decided on 25.3.1997 with a direction that statements of the parents of the deceased be recorded before the Magistrate. Pursuant to such directions, statement (Ext. PC) of father (complainant) was recorded. Investigation revealed that on 7.7.1996 itself Sh. Sunil Kalia, relative of brother of the complainant had accompanied the accused to the doctors at Chintpurni, Gagret and Ludhiana.

(3.) IN order to prove its case prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded. In defence accused Pramodh Kumar stepped into the witness box and got recorded his statement.