JAI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 28/2/2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, H.P., (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents no. 2 to 4 (accused before the learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (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 appellant/informant Jaidei (PW1) is the mother of Sandesh Kumari (since deceased). Sandesh Kumari was married to accused Ravinder Kumar five years before the incident. Dowry was provided to Ravinder Kumar and his family members as per the informant's capacity, and she had spent about ?5.00 lacs for solemnising the marriage. The accused kept Sandesh Kumari properly for about three years after the marriage. They started harassing her after three years. The husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased used to demand money from her. The informant would counsel the deceased and provide her with something or the other. ?40,000/- was provided to the accused on the occasion of marriage of Ravinder's sister as per his demand; however, the accused continued to harass the deceased. They compelled the deceased to get her younger sister married to accused, Shashi Pal; however, he was physically challenged, and the younger sister of the deceased did not agree to this proposal. The deceased told the informant three days before the incident that the accused were harassing her. The accused, Ravinder, threatened to commit suicide and falsely implicate the deceased and her family members in case the marriage between his brother and sister of deceased was not solemnised. The informant told the deceased that the matter would be discussed after 1-2 days. Saroj told the informant on 22/6/2011 at about 2.00 AM that Sandesh had consumed poison. The informant, her husband Joginder Lal, her brother-in-law and her sister-in-law reached Una Hospital. The Medical Officer on duty referred Sandesh Kumari to the Post Graduate Institute (PGI), Chandigarh. The deceased revealed on the way that her husband compelled her to get the marriage of her sister solemnised with his brother; otherwise, he would commit suicide. She disconnected the phone, but he called his mother. Accused Kamla Devi and Shashi Pal harassed the deceased. They asked Sandesh Kumari that if she wanted to die; she could die, but she should not kill Kamla's son. Sandesh committed suicide due to the harassment of her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. They were also not present during the last rites of the deceased. A complaint (Ex.PW1/A) was made to the police. FIR (Ex.PW22/A) was registered. Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW11) conducted a medical examination of Sandesh at the time of her admission to the hospital. He issued the MLC (Ex.PW11/B). He also preserved the gastric lavage of the deceased. Darshan Lal and Mohinder Singh (PW8) visited the Police Station and disclosed that one suicide note was recovered from the room of the deceased, which was kept in the house. ASI Bhagat Ram (PW19) went to the house of Gurmail Singh. A suicide note (Ex. P7) and an empty pouch of Celphos were handed over to ASI Bhagat Ram, who seized them vide memo (Ex.PW8/A). The pouch was wrapped in a piece of cloth, and the parcel was sealed with three impressions of seal 'A'. Specimen impression of seal (Ex.PW19/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. Sandesh died at PGI, Chandigarh. ASI Bhagat Ram (PW19) went to PGI, Chandigarh and prepared an inquest report (Ex.PW19/B). He obtained the postmortem report (Ex.PW19/C). He handed over the dead body of the deceased to her father-in-law in the presence of her father vide memo (Ex.PW2/A). He also took photographs of the dead body (Ex. P12 to Ex. P14). ASI Bhagat Ram prepared the site plan (Ex.PW19/D) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. Gurmail Singh handed over one slip pad (Ex. P11), which was seized vide memo (Ex.PW10/A). Jagroop Singh (PW3) handed over six pieces of plyboard (Ex. P1 to Ex. P6) on which papers in Gurmukhi script in the hands of the deceased were pasted. These were seized vide memo (Ex.PW3/A). ASI Bhagat Ram obtained the admitted signatures of the deceased from the records of Government Senior Secondary School Khanpur Khun. The extract of Page No. 138 of the register (Ex.PW6/B) was seized vide memo (Ex.PW6/A). The signatures were sent to RFSL, Dharamshala, for obtaining expert opinion. The result of the analysis (Ex.CC) was issued in which it was shown that the disputed and admitted handwritings were written by the same person. Vijay Sharma (PW20) conducted further investigation. He searched the room of the deceased and seized three ballpoint pens (Ex. P8 to Ex. P10) from the drawer of bed and table. He seized four leaves of the application addressed by Ravinder to his superior vide seizure memo (Ex.PW9/A). The ballpoint pens and the papers were wrapped in a piece of cloth, and the parcel was sealed with seal 'H'. Specimen seal 'H' (Ex.PW20/A) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. He filed an application (Ex.PW11/D) to obtain the opinion of the Medical Officer and the inpatient record. Dr. D.K. Sharma (PW11) issued the impatient record (Ex.PW11/C). The call detail record and Customer Application Form of the mobile phones were taken into possession. The reports of analysis (Ex.CA and Ex.CB) were issued by RFSL in which it was mentioned that the Phosphine Gas was detected in the viscera and Gastric lavage. Aluminium phosphide was detected in the packet of Celphos. Statements of remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, a challan was prepared and presented before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Una, who committed it to learned Sessions Judge, Una, for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Una assigned the trial to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Una (learned Trial Court).

(3.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge Una charged the accused with the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.