SILMO DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dtd. 31/7/2010 and order of sentence dtd. 4/8/2010, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Trial Court) vide which the appellant (accused) before the learned Trial Court was convicted and sentenced as under:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_29_LAWS(HPH)8_2025_1.jpg</IMG> (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was asserted that the informant, Sudershan Singh (PW1), had three daughters and one son. Meenu Kumari (since deceased) was the eldest. She was married to Bhuvneshwar Singh on 1/5/2005 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. One daughter was born to her. No dowry was demanded at the time of the marriage. However, the informant provided the gold ornaments as per his capacity. Meenu told the informant that her mother-in-law, Silmo Devi (present petitioner), started taunting her that she had not brought anything at the time of her marriage. The informant counselled Meenu and told her that he would settle the matter. He purchased a bed box, a Godrej almirah & bedding and dropped all these articles in the matrimonial home of Meenu. Silmo Devi told Meenu that instead of providing the articles, the expenses of the delivery of the child should have been provided. Meenu called her parental home on 5/5/2007. The call was picked up by Poonam (PW3). Meenu said that Silmo Devi was harassing and taunting her by saying that she was good for nothing. Charan Lal called the informant on 7/5/2007 at about 1:30 P.M. and informed him that Meenu had committed suicide by hanging herself. The matter was reported to the police. An entry No.35 (Ex. PW8/A) was recorded. ASI Kamal Deep (PW10) went to the hospital for verification. Sudershan(PW1) made a statement (Ex.PW1/A), which was sent to the police station where F.I.R. (Ex.PW9/A) was registered. The photographs of the dead body (Ex. PW10/A1 to Ex. PW10/A5) whose negatives are Ex. PW10/A6 to Ex. PW10/A10 were taken. Kamal Deep (PW10) conducted the inquest and prepared the report (Ex. PW7/B). He filed an application (Ex.PW7/A) for conducting the post-mortem examination of the dead body. Dr. Jaidesh Rana (PW7) conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body and found that the cause of death was asphyxia. He preserved the viscera and handed them over to the police official accompanying the dead body. He issued the report (Ex. PW7/C). ASI Kamal Deep went to the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW10/B). The photographs of the spot (Ex.PW10/A11 to Ex.PW10/A14) whose negatives are Ex.PW10/A15 to Ex.PW10/A18 were taken. The telephone receipt (Ex.PW1/B) was seized vide memo (Ex.PW1/C). The viscera and other belongings were sent to SFSL, Junga. Reports (Exs. PX & PY) were issued stating that "dupatta" could easily bear the weight of an average female body, and no poison was detected in the viscera. The final report was issued by Dr. Jaidesh Rana (PW7). Statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class-I, Palampur, who committed it to the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala for trial.

(3.) Learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala (learned Trial Court) charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 of the IPC, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.