STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has challenged the acquittal of the respondents who were charged for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The facts as alleged by the prosecution are that accused Pawan Kumar, husband of deceased, and Pyare Lal both, sons of Kanshi Ram (A -3) were married with deceased Meena and Anjana Devi respectively about 12 years prior to the incident. Deceased Meena Devi and Anjana Devi (PW -16) are sisters of Kali Dass (PW -1). Meena Devi had four children, out of whom, only one child Deepak (DW -1) is surviving. The other three children had died. The case of the prosecution is that after about one year of their marriage, Pawan Kumar and Pyare Lal accused started harassing and torturing deceased Meena and Anjana (PW -16). They used to beat them up after drinking. The other accused Kanshi Ram, Shankari Devi, Giano Devi and Premi Devi used to instigate both of them to thrash both Meena and Anjana. On 16.3.2004, Anjana was beaten up by the accused persons and Kirpu Ram (PW -2) accompanied Anjana. Kirpu Ram (PW -2) told Kali Dass (PW -1) that Anjana had been beaten up by the accused and her life was in danger. On 19.3.2004 at around 11.00 p.m., Sohan Lal informed Kali Dass (PW -1) that Meena had died. Kali Dass did not believe this fact because earlier also, on one occasion, he had been informed about her death by accused Pawan Kumar which was conveyed to him from Ludhiana and to verify they visited Ludhiana and found this report to be false and Meena was found alive. On 20.3.2004, PW -1 asked someone on telephone about deceased Meena and he was told that Meena had in fact died on the previous day. Thereafter, he alongwith villagers went to village Jejwin. Information with respect to this fact was also given to the Police. On reaching the house of accused Pawan Kumar, Kali Dass saw that dead body of Meena was lying in the Verandah and froth was coming out from her mouth. Police party headed by S.I. Rai Singh (PW -17) reached the spot whereafter Kali Dass (PW -1) lodged report that the accused used to beat and harass her and therefore she was left with no other option but to commit suicide by consuming some poison. Rai Singh (PW -17) recorded the statement of PW -1 (Kali Dass) (Ex. PW1/A) under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sent it to the Police Station for registration of the case. F.I.R. (Ex. PW10/A) was. registered and investigation was conducted by the police.

(2.) THE prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses and the defence was relied upon the evidence of five witnesses. After assessment of the evidence, learned trial Court acquitted the accused.

(3.) WE advert to the evidence of PW -1 (Kali Dass). He is brother of the deceased who only makes a general statement and he has not come out with specific evidence of cruelty. We also note that in his cross -examination, this witness has clearly admitted that the demand for dowry was stated by him for the first time in Court and he was not aware about any specific demand. PW -2 (Kirpu Ram) states that he had settled the marriage of deceased Meena and Anjana about 13 -14 years back. On 16.3.2004, Anjana came to his house and told him that she had been beaten up by the accused. At that time, Anjana was unable to walk. People advised him to take Anjana to the Police Station, whereas he accompanied her to the house of her parents at about 5:00 p.m. He also took alongwith him Anjana's son as he was to appear in an examination. On 16.3.2004, Meena came to his house in his absence and asked about Anjana, on which his son and daughter told Meena that he (PW -2) had gone with Anjana to Berthin. He further state that thereafter, Meena said that Anjana had left for her parents' house as she was apprehending danger to her life. What we notice at this stage is that this witness states that Anjana had been beaten up severely and was unable to walk and in this eventuality she should have been taken to the hospital or for medical aid but this course was not followed. No action was reported or initiated against the accused rather Anjana was taken to her parents' house, who also did not follow any course or action for her protection. We also find that there is no evidence that the parents had approached the police. We cannot comprehend why any action was not taken by the parents of the deceased despite notice that Anjana had been severely beaten up. We find that the statement attributed to Meena is hearsay as the son or the daughter of this witness who imparted information to him was not produced in Court. When we advert to cross -examination of this witness, we do not find any reason that when there were 60 -70 houses in the village why Meena and Anjana had not informed/complained to other persons about the beatings/maltreatment.