(1.) BOTH these appeals are disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of the same judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una, convicting the appellants -accused for offences punishable . u/s. 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). The State has challenged their acquittal under Section 306 IPC (Cr. Appeal No. 343 of 2006), while the appellants have challenged their conviction under Section 498A IPC (Cr. Appeal No. 262 of 2006). The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that deceased Saroj wife of first accused Gurdial Chand, was maltreated by all the three accused, as a result of which, she ended her life by consuming phosphate poison in the early hours of 11.10.2003. She was driven to take this extreme step because of the cruel treatment meted out to her by the accused for bringing insufficient dowry. It is urged that the deceased was instrumental in fixing the marriage of the daughter of the second accused Jagat Ram, which marriage did not prove to be successful; this was a further cause for harassment and maltreatment. All the three accused were harbouring a grudge against her, as she alleged that the first accused Gurdial Chand was having illicit relations with the third accused Rachna Devi, who was his 'Bhabhi'. The learned trial Court on the evidence of the prosecution convicted all the three accused for offence under Section 498A IPC sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The accused were acquitted for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
(2.) WE are not reappraising the evidence in the manner in which the learned trial Court has considered, but test the conclusion on each of the circumstances. PW -1 Piaray Lal is father of the deceased and PW -11 Ram Asri is her mother. PW -1 Piaray Lal states in general terms that the accused used to trouble and harass the deceased for bringing less dowry. Adverting to the evidence of PW -11 Ram Asri, she corroborates this part of the statement of PW -1 Piaray Lal and further states that she had paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/ - to the deceased so that the accused could purchase land. It is undisputed fact before us that both these witnesses had been called to the house of the deceased on 11.10.2003, post mortem was conducted when they were there and they were also present at the time of cremation. They did not utter a single word about any allegation of the nature as alleged by the prosecution when they reached the village of the deceased at the time of post mortem or cremation. In fact we note that PW -11 Ram Asri states in cross -examination that the police had reached the house of the deceased before they reached there. Sh. Ram Pal, Master (PW -5) was called by the police. She then states that she along with her husband and another family members were interrogated by the police; her statement was recorded in the village on 12.10.2003. We also find from the statements of other witnesses that the statements regarding maltreatment are very general in nature without any specific instance of maltreatment.
(3.) PW -4 Shamsher Singh is Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Batuhi. In cross -examination, he states that the police had recovered a strip of Diclowin Plus tablets containing 8 tablets in his presence. In cross -examination, he states that he knows all the accused present in the Court. The deceased had never complained to him during her lifetime about any maltreatment nor the parents of the deceased had made any such complaint. He states that he knows all the residents of the village and no villager had ever made any complaint regarding maltreatment of deceased Saroj.