STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MEHAR SINGH

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 16.9.2003, vide which he acquitted the respondent of the charge framed against him under Sections 306/498 -A I.P.C. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an information was received at Police Station Bhoranj from one Nikka Ram on 26.4.2000, at about 12.30 midnight, that body of one Ruma Devi had been brought to Community Health Centre, Bhoranj, in burn condition for treatment. On receipt of this information, the then SHO and the police officials went to the hospital, moved an application as to whether Smt. Ruma Devi was fit to make statement or not. She was found unfit as per opinion of the Medical Officer. She was referred to Zonal Hospital where she died and postmortem was conducted on the body of the deceased. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of PW -2 Vidya Devi, mother of the deceased, under Section 154 Cr.P.C. A case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (I), Hamirpur, who committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, who tried the respondent as detailed above, leading to his acquittal.

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

(3.) THE most material witness can be said to be PW -2 Vidya Devi, mother of the deceased. She has stated that the deceased was married to one Raghu Ram and out of this wed lock, a son and a daughter were born. The said Raghu Ram left the place in search of work, but thereafter he was not heard, nor he came back. The accused is the younger brother of Raghu and he started pressurizing the deceased to live with him as his wife, as his wife had already died. The deceased had told PW -2 about this fact and on her refusal to live with the accused, the accused used to give her beatings. About 20 days prior to her death, the deceased came to her house and complained that after giving her beatings, the accused had thrown her from the staircase. She stayed in the house of her mother and on the next day, the accused visited her house and forcibly took the deceased alongwith him. She learnt about the burning and went to the house of the accused and gave a statement. She admitted in cross -examination that her daughter used to be hard of money as her husband was not sending money to her, though she volunteered that she used to maintain her. She admitted that she had complained to the parents of the accused and the father of the accused had already expired since long and his mother used to reside with the deceased in the village. She denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide on her own due to paucity of funds and want of maintenance.