The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had committed murder or abetted the deceased's suicide. However, the court found that the prosecution had proved that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment for dowry, which had led to her death by suicide. The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the suicide note, the post-mortem report, and the testimony of witnesses, to conclude that the accused were guilty of the offenses.

Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge.

State has come in appeal against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan rendered in case No. 15-S/7 of 2001 whereby respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in the alternative for offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted on 24.3.2003.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that accused Sanjay Purwar was married on 1.12.1997 to Smt. Sudha Purwar daughter of Sh. Triloki Nath (PW-15). They were residing in tenanted premises, namely, “Renuka Bhawan” Dhobighat, Solan owned by PW-1 Sh. Pradeep Ghosh. Sanjay Purwar was an employee of Indo American Hybrid Seeds posted at Solan and was residing alongwith deceased Sudha. During the summer vacation in the School in Urai, his mother Smt. Sharda Purwar had also come to spend her vacations at Solan. ASI Kushal Singh (PW-12) was informed by H.C. Jeet Ram (PW-5) on 12.6.2001 that body of Sudha Purwar was brought to the hospital. Thereafter, PW-12 ASI Kushal Singh alongwith other police officials proceeded to the hospital. He inspected the dead body in the mortuary. Thereafter, he went to the house of accused at Renuka Bhawan. ASI Kushal Singh took into possession the rope Ex.P-1 vide memo Ex.PW-1/D prima facie finding it a case of suicide. He thereafter prepared the inquest report Ex.PW-1/A. Suicide note was also recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. The team of doctors conducted the post-mortem on 13.6.2001. The copy of the post-mortem report is Ex.PW-8/A. The viscera was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The dead body was handed over to PW-15 Triloki Nath. He went to Police Station on 14.6.2001 and informed that his deceased daughter was married to accused 3½ years ago. She was law graduate from Lucknow University. She was tortured by the accused persons and they demanded money from her. She was not allowed to meet with relations. Accused used to lock the main gate of the house keeping the deceased inside when they used to go out. She was tortured and was pressurized to bring more dowry. He was informed by accused Sanjay Purwar on 12.6.2001 at 2.00 P.M. telephonically that Smt. Sudha has committed suicide by hanging. Thereafter, the police again visited the spot and carried out investigation. Site plan Ex.PW-13/B was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were also recorded. Accused were arrested on 14.6.2001. Smt. Sharda Purwar was released on bail by the Sessions Judge on 16.7.2001. Reports of the Chemical Analyst are Ex.PW-11/A and PW-11/B. Suicide note is recovered vide memo Ex.PW-1/B. Thereafter, police concluded that it was a case of murder and not suicide and the F.I.R. was converted into section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused Sanjay Purwar had tried to create evidence of suicide by hanging though it was a murder. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

3. The prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under section 313 was recorded. Accused has appeared as DW-1 and has also examined six witnesses in defence. The trial court has acquitted the accused on 24.3.2003 by giving them benefit of doubt. It is in these circumstances, State has filed the present appeal.

4. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. According to him, the trial court has not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence.

5. Mr. Dinesh Kumar and Mr. Y. Paul have supported the judgment of acquittal.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records carefully.

7. According to PW-1 Pradeep Ghosh, accused Sanjay used to reside in the upper portion of his building as a tenant