STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KULDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2001, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P, in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 1999, acquitting the accused -Respondents for the offences under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B read with Section 34 IPC, in reference to F.I.R No. 34 of 1998, dated 21.4.1998.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that Sushma Devi was married to accused Kuldip Singh in the year 1995, according to Hindu rites and customs. Initially for a couple of months, both carried their married life happily, however, whenever, Sushma (victim -deceased) came to the house of her parents she made complaint that she was beaten by accused Kuldip Singh on the pretext that she was not obeying the commands of her husband. In November, 1996, when Sushma came to her parents house she remained there for two months. At that time accused Kuldip Singh, his uncle Janki Dass and Phufa (father 'ssister 'shusband) Raghubir Chand came to the house of PW -1 and on apology by Kuldip Singh they took the responsibility that the victim will not be beaten in future, then Sushma/victim was sent to her in laws house. Again in January, 1998, Sushma/victim came to her parents house where she complained that accused Kuldip Singh and his mother Bhagi Devi , had beaten her. At that time the victim had shown beatings on her body. On 17.4.1998, on the eve of 'Mundan Ceremony ' of the daughter of Sushma, no body was invited from her parental house. Only Sushma telephoned about the ceremony and her brother attended the same and on return he told that the accused had given beatings to Sushma on 16.4.1998. on 20.4.1998, PW -1 Prithi Chand received a telephonic information that the victim was serious and was being taken to Tauni Devi Hospital. PW -1 visited hospital, but did not find Sushma there, thereafter he went to the house of accused at about 9.00 PM and noticed that Sushma was lying dead on the charpai. PW -1/Prithi Chand informed Pradhan of the village, who in turn informed the police. Police reached at the spot on 21.4.1998, at about 1.30 AM and recorded statement of PW -1 Ex.PW -1/A. On 27.4.1998, supplementary statement of PW -1 was recorded by the police. PW -1 made complaint on 21.4.98 that he had suspicion that Sushma was done away to death by the accused persons, or the accused had given something to eat to the deceased, on account of which Sushma had died. Postmortem examination of the victim was conducted by PW -8, Dr. Raj Kumar, who however, on examination did not notice any external injury on the person of victim. Ex.PW -8/C, i.e FSL report also does not indicate any consumption of poisonous material by the victim. On investigation, the accused -Respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) PW -1 in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that he filed affidavit Ex.DA, dated 7.9.1998, before the Executive Magistrate, Hamirpur, stating that the FIR was lodged by him in reference to some doubtful and suspicious information, whereas there was no trouble to Sushma/victim in her matrimonial house. As per the contents of the affidavit of PW -1, dated 7.9.98, Sushma died due to her own death. PW -1 in his cross examination has stated that when beatings were given to Sushma in November, 1996 and January, 1998, she was not medically examined. PW -1 has further stated that one Bhumi Dev, a military personnel took out Sushma/victim from the well. PW -1 has also stated in cross examination that on the day Sushma died, accused had put a lintel of a verandah on the well of water, supported with bamboo even around the well. PW -1 had however denied that while taking water from the well, Sushma, slipped and fell into the well. PW -2/Suresh Kumari, the mother of the victim Sushma Devi, in her endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that when Sushma came to her house in the end of 1996, she remained there for about two months and disclosed that her husband Kuldip Singh at the instance of his mother Bhagi Devi used to beat her and also used to demand Scooter from her parents. PW -2 has further stated that victim/Sushma disclosed that she was beaten by the accused, signs of beatings were noticed on the body of victim. PW -2 like PW -1 has very categorically stated in cross examination that whenever Sushma came to her parents house, she was accompanied by Kuldip Singh/(husband of the victim). But, PW -1 Prithi Chand, has not stated anything about the demand of dowry. Whereas, PW -2 has very casually stated that scooter was demanded by the accused from the parents of victim. Both PW -1 and PW -2 have very categorically stated that there was no medical examination of the alleged beatings.