Point of Law: In absence of prove of demand of dowry by appellant or his family members from deceased or her ill-treatment for such reason, no presumption could have been drawn against them of abetment under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.7.2010/27.07.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kagra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 3-D/VII-2008, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. During the pendency of appeal, appellants No.2 and 3 have died and only appellant No.1 survives.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Sumna Devi was wife of the appellant No.1. She consumed poison on 18.07.2006 and as a result thereof died on 28.07.2006. Brother of deceased got recorded his statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. on 18.7.2006 and on its basis FIR No. 153/2006 was registered under section 498-A/34 IPC.

4. It was alleged in statement under section 154 Cr.P.C. that the appellant No.1 and deceased were married for the last about four years and had a daughter aged about three years from the wedlock. Complainant further alleged that his wife Seena Devi had disclosed to him about 3-5 months back that the deceased had complained about the demand of dowry and her harassment for such demand by the appellants. She had allegedly complained that she was being tortured and given beatings for demand of dowry. As per the complainant, he had remained silence assuming that it was normal wear and tear of life and had not taken the disclosure made by his wife seriously. He had received an information on 18.07.2006 at about 7.30 a.m. that his sister Sumana Devi was ill and was hospitalized. He telephonically contacted at the house of in-laws of Sumana Devi and got a response from her father-in-law that Sumana Devi had died in hospital at Dharamshala. On such information, complainant along with his relatives reached the hospital at Dharamshala and found that his sister was alive and was admitted in the hospital. Complainant also suspected that his sister was being ill-treated because the appellant No.1 had illicit relations with some other lady.

5. Postmortem report opined the cause of death as asphyxia due to pulmonary oedema and brain oedema under the circumstances of ingestion of poison “Aluminium Phosphide” and anemia.

6. Prosecution examined total 13 witnesses. PW-1 Piar Chand is the complainant and PW-2 Sheena Devi is his wife. PW-3 Jumloo Ram is the uncle of deceased Smt. Sumna Devi and PW-4 Smt. Kaushalya Devi is her mother. PW-5. Dr. D.P. Swami had conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased. PW-8 Dr. V.D. Dogra, proved the treatment summary of deceased Smt. Sumana Devi as Ex.PW8/A. PW-6 HHC Kartar Singh, PW-9 ASI Surjeet Kumar, PW-10 ASI Onkar Nath, PW-11 S.I. Om Parkash, PW-12 ASI Vinod Kumar and PW-13 ASI Anil Kumar were the official witnesses of police. PW-7 Shiv Kumar was the photographer.

7. Learned trial Court held the offences proved against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as noticed above.

8. I have heard Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State and have also gone through the entire record carefully.

9. The police machinery was moved on the basis of statement of PW-1 made under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. The basis of recording of FIR Ex.PW10/B was the aforesaid statement. In the aforesaid statement under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. PW-1 had not disclosed any personal knowledge regarding ill-treatment of the deceased for dowry at the hands of her in-laws. Even with respect to the alleged illicit relations of appellant with some other lady, PW-1 had only suspicion. PW-1 while deposing before the learned trial Court agai