STATE OF H.P. Vs. SANT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of Sessions Court whereby respondent Sant Ram, the father-in-law, Suresh Kumar, the husband, Roshni Devi, the mother-in-law and Sunita Devi, the sister-in-law of deceased Pushpa Devi, who had been charged with and tried for offences punishable under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 I.P.C. have been acquitted.

(2.) MARRIAGE of deceased Pushpa Devi had taken place with respondent Suresh Kumar on 13.9.1987. On 4-9-1988, deceased and respondent Suresh Kumar visited the parental house of the deceased in connection with a fair in the village of the parents of the deceased. They returned to the matrimonial home around 4.00 P.M. The same evening around 6.30 P.M, deceased complained of stomach pain. She was rushed to near-by Civil Dispensary at village Kangoo. There the Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? deceased told Dr. Rajinder Singh (PW8) that she had consumed aluminum phosphide. The Doctor enquired the cause of her having consumed the poison, but she kept quiet. Around 8.30 P.M. she died. Her parents were informed. They reached the Hospital at 1.00 A.M. on 5.9.1988. The father of the deceased made report to the Police, which was reduced into writing in the form of his statement, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is Exhibit PD. Per this report the deceased used to be harassed by the four respondents, for her having not brought in dowry four items, namely, Television, Charoti (a big vessel for cooking), a godrej almirah and a drum for storing food grains. He further reported that the deceased also used to be taunted that she did not know the house hold chores and shirked work. It was also reported by him that when he reached the Hospital after getting the news that the deceased had been admitted to the Hospital with some serious ailment and found that his daughter was no more, he enquired from respondent Suresh Kumar as to what had happened and the latter told him that she had consumed aluminum phosphide.

(3.) ALL the four respondents were sent up for trial. Trial Court charged them for the offence under Section 304-B, in the alternative under Section 306, I.P.C and Section 498-A I.P.C. and finally acquitted them, as aforesaid.