STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

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, Bilaspur, dated 3.3.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondents of the charge framed against them under Sections 498 -A/304 -B/34 I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 14.3.1995, at about 4.15 P.M., a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. was made by Smt. Kamla Devi, who stated that she had married her eldest daughter Neelam Kumari @ Babli in December, 1990 with Ramesh Kumar, respondent. She stated that when she went to the house of her daughter after two years, she was told by her that respondent Ramesh Kumar, her mother -in -law, father ªin -law, maternal uncle, maternal aunt, sisters -in -law and one Swami Jagdanand, all the accused, used to maltreat her that her parents had not given sufficient dowry and used to give her beatings and threat to take her life. Her daughter was given beatings by her in -laws and in July, 1994, when her daughter came to her house, she was informed that she was kept inside the room for six days without any food or water. It was also stated that there was demand of Fridge, Sofa, golden chain and a share in the land and her daughter lived in her house. Thereafter, accused Ramesh Kumar came to her house and he begged to be excused and stated that he will not give her beatings and her daughter was sent with Ramesh Kumar accused. On 14.3.1995, at about 12.00, she learnt that her daughter has died in her in -laws house and she went there and made statement to the police, on which a case was registered. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondents as detailed above, leading to their acquittal.

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

(3.) SMT . Kamla Devi, mother of the deceased, has been examined as PW -1, who stated about the marriage and the harassment caused to her daughter by all the respondents and her husband for insufficient dowry. They were also demanding Fridge, Sofa, golden chain and Rs. 50,000/ - in cash, about which there was no reference in the complaint lodged with the police. She also stated that four years prior to her death, the deceased were kept inside the room for six days and was not given any food. Her daughter remained for two months in her house. Ramesh Kumar came to her house and took her daughter and assured of good behaviour. Her daughter was killed within two months of her going with the accused. She also stated that the accused persons were asking her daughter to serve Baba and when she refused, she was given physical beatings by all the accused persons. The deceased insisted that the Baba should be served by her mother -in -law and she was not going to serve him. In cross -examination, she clearly admitted that at the time of marriage there was no demand of dowry by the accused persons. She was told about the demand of dowry by the accused persons only by his daughter and one Shyam Singh. She never made any complaint to the police or Deputy Commissioner. She stated that whenever Ramesh accused visited her house, he was threatening to take poison, in case she will not send her daughter with him. She stated that the deceased gave birth two children and at that time and at the time of operations, her mother -in -law was with her. She admitted that her daughter was admitted by the accused persons in the hospital on all the three occasions and denied that she had not paid any money at that time. She also admitted that blood was given by accused Ramesh at the time of second operation of her daughter. She stated that she could not state about the demand of cash to the police since she became unconscious after hearing the sad news of the death of her daughter. This she stated for the first time. She also stated that the accused has not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage of his daughter and they were demanding dowry from his daughter and not from her.