STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 17.09.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.8 -S/7 of 2007, titled as State Versus Sunil Kumar, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that in the year 2003, accused Sunil Kumar got married to deceased Sita Devi and within one year differences arose between them. Deceased filed a criminal complaint dated 30.03.2005 (Ex.PW.5/A) with the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, alleging cruelties meted out by the accused to her. Superintendent of Police, did take some action, whereafter deceased started living with her father Sh.Shobia Ram (PW.9), away from the company of the accused who would often visit her. On 20.06.2006, deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of her father. Incident of death was first reported at Police Post, Mashobra and entry pertaining to which was recorded by Constable Bhupinder Singh (PW.4). Police Station, Dhalli, was informed and after recording entry in the Police Station (Ex.PW.18/A), police rushed to the spot. SI Raj Kumar (PW.18), Additional SHO, Police Station, Dhalli, prepared inquest report (Ex.PW.1/B) and sent the dead body for postmortem. Incriminating material i.e. rope (Ex.P -1) and torch (Ex.P -2) was also sealed and seized vide memo (Ex.PW.11/A). Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr.Piyush Kapila (PW.1), who issued postmortem report (Ex.PW.1/C). According to the doctor, deceased died as a result of asphyxia secondary ante mortem hanging. FIR No.127 of 2006, dated 20.06.2006 (Ex.PW.7/B), under the provisions of Section 306 IPC was registered at Police Station, Dhalli, against the accused. Accused was arrested. Police took into possession record pertaining to the complaint made by the deceased with the Superintendent of Police, Shimla and Women Commission. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, hence Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) ACCUSED was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.