Revisionist v. Hem Kumar Pandey

and perused the lower court record.

3. Prosecution story in brief respondent Hem Kumar Pandey (accused) got married on 08.12.1990 to Hemlata Pandey @ Deepa (deceased) daughter of Gauri Shankar Joshi (revisionist). On 2.07.1991, in the early hours of the day she was reported to have committed suicide by hanging herself. A report appears to have been sent to the police from the side of husband by Pradeep Kumar Pandey (brother-in-law of the deceased) on the very day at about 8:25 a.m. which was registered as serial no. 25 in the general diary the Police Station Haldwani. Also, information was sent to the revisionist regarding the death of his daughter. The police reached at the spot and took the dead their possession. Post-mortem examination was conducted on the very day i.e. on 02.07.1991, at about 2:30 P.M. by Dr. V.K. Dixit (P.W.5) in which a finding was given that asphyxia, due to hanging, was cause of the death of the deceased. No first 3 information report was lodged from the side of the parents of the deceased at that point of time. Rather, revisionist Gauri Shankar Joshi gave in writing a letter (Ex. A1) dated

02.07.1991, that he had no complaint or doubt as to harassment of the deceased for non fulfilment of demand of dowry, and the dead body of his daughter may be given to her in laws for last rights. However, it appears that after about ten days, some letter was sent to the grievance-cell of the Prime Minister(cid:146)s office (PMO) from where the letter was diverted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital, for necessary action. On its basis a crime was registered relating to offences punishable under section 306 and 498A I.P.C., against the respondent Hem Kumar Pandey. After investigation, the police submitted charge against respondent/accused for his trial in respect of said offences. After giving necessary copies, the case appears to have been committed to the court of Sessions, trial. On

05.02.1997, after hearing the parties, the framed charge of offence punishable under section 306 and one punishable under section 498A I.P.C., against the accused/respondent Hem Kumar 4 Pandey who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Gauri Shankar Joshi (present revisionist, and father of the deceased), P.W.2 Rajendra Singh Dhanik, P.W.3 Rajesh Kumar (landlord of house where accused and the deceased used to live), P.W.4 Pradeep Kumar Pandey (brother of the respondent/accused) P.W.5 Dr. V.K. Dixit, who conducted the autopsy, and P.W.6 Pramod Kumar Mishra, Investigating Officer. The evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he admitted that the deceased was his wife. He further admitted that she died due to hanging. However, he has denied that he ever abetted or harassed deceased. No evidence in defence was adduced. The trial court after discussing the evidence on record acquitted the accused (present revisionist) of the charge. Hence this revision.

4. Learned counsel the revisionist argued that the trial court has erred in law in acquitting the accused. He further pleaded that the trial court should have summoned the mother of the deceased by exercising his powers under section 311 of Cr.P.C. It is also 5 contended that since the deceased had mentioned in her suicide note that after her post-mortem examination conducted, the said fact should not have been ignored by the trial court. It is also contended that the unnatural death of the deceased occurred within one year of the marriage while the deceased was carrying pregnancy.

5. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that, admittedly respondent/accused Hem Kumar Pandey got married the deceased Hemlata @ Deepa on 08.12.1990.It is also proved on the record that Hemlata @ Deepa committed suicide on 02.07.1991, as proved from the statement of P.W.5 Dr.V.K. Dixit read with autopsy report (Ex. A-10). The only question before the trial court was whether she was abetted to commit suicide and whether she was subjected to cruelty before her death.

6. P.W.1 Gauri Shankar Joshi has only stated that the behaviour of respondent Hem Kumar Pandey was cruel towards deceased. However, he has not given any details as to the cruelty. P.W.2 Rajendra 6 Singh Dhanik, has simply stated that on the day of Rakshabandhan when he was departing after getting tied Rakhi in the hand by the deceased, there were tears in her eyes. P.W.3 Rajesh Kumar the landlord of the deceased and her husband has stated that the deceased committed suicide. However, he has stated that the relations between the husband and the wife were cordial. P.W.4 Pradeep Kumar Pandey (brother of the accused/respondent) has stated that after the deceased committed suicide the report was given to the police and the information was sent to the revisionist. Apart from this, there are several letters on the record of the deceased written before her death by the deceased which are proved by P.W.1 Gauri Shankar Joshi. None of these letters written by the deceased indicate anything if she was ever subjected to cruelty by her husband Hem Kumar Pandey (accused). As such, except bald statement of Gauri Shankar Joshi, P.W.1 there is nothing on the record which discloses respondent committed cruelty as against the deceased.

7. There is also a suicide note (Ex. A-24) on the record in which the deceased has clearly 7 mentioned that no one is responsible for her death, and she herself is responsible for it. Regretting her decision for committing suicide, she has lastly mentioned that post- mortem examination may be conducted after her death and her husband may get remarried after her death. Merely for the reason that she has mentioned that her husband may get remarried or that the post- mortem examination may be conducted on her body after her death does not suggest that she was subjected to cruelty before her death.

8. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court does not find any sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial court acquitting the respondent Hem Kumar Pandey of the charges of offences punishable under section 306 and 498A IPC. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 01.07.2010 Parul 8