State of U.P. (now State of Uttarakhand) v. Dharm Singh

and perused the lower court record.

#3. Prosecution story in brief is that accused/ respondent no. 1 Dharm Singh got married to Smt. Usha (deceased) in the year 1989. Accused/ respondent no. 2 Sultan Singh and accused/ respondent no. 3 Vidhya Devi are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased (Usha). Smt. Usha died unnatural death on 09.05.1991, in her matrimonial house by consuming poison. On

25.05.1991 (after about fifteen days), P.W. 3 Ratan Singh lodged first information report at Police Station Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun, against accused/respondents alleging that they harassed Smt. Usha, and committed cruelty against her due to which she consumed poison and died. On the basis of said report, crime no. 139 of 1991, was registered relating to offence punishable under section 306 IPC, against three 3 accused Dharm Singh (husband), Sultan Singh (father-in-law) and Vidya Devi(mother-in-law). After investigation, charge sheet was filed against three accused/respondents for their trial in respect of offences punishable under section 304B, 306, 498A IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

#4. It appears that case was committed to the court of Sessions by the Magistrate. On

17.04.1995, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, after hearing the parties framed charge of offences punishable under section 304B read with section 34, 306, 498A IPC, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, to which all the three accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W.1 Pushpa Devi (declared hostile), P.W.2 Madan Lal, P.W.3 Ratan Lal (informant), P.W.4 Saroj Bala, P.W.5 Dr. Jai Deep Dutta (who conducted post mortem examination) and P.W.6 Sub Inspector Roopchand Yadav. 4

#5. Oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., in reply to which they only admitted that Usha (deceased) got married to accused/respondent Dharm Singh, and P.W.1 Pushpa Devi was her real sister. As to the rest of the allegations the same was denied. In defence D.W.1 Brij Lal was got examined. The trial court after hearing the parties found that prosecution has failed to prove charge of offences punishable under section 304B/34, 306, 498A, and one punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition, against any of the accused/respondents and acquitted them of the charge. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 04.10.1999, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Sessions Trial No. 139 of 1994, this appeal was filed by the State challenging the order of acquittal before Allahabad High Court from where it is received by transfer under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 (Central Act 29 of 2000) for its disposal.

#6. Statement of P.W.5 Dr. Jai Deep Dutta 5 read with autopsy report (Ex. A3) shows that in post mortem examination cause of death could not be ascertained. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased consumed organo phosphorus insecticide due to which she died on

09.05.1991. Autopsy was conducted on

10.05.1991. The first information report also discloses that deceased had consumed poison. It is not disputed even by accused/respondents that Smt. Usha committed suicide by consuming poison. In the circumstances, it can be said that it is established on record that Smt. Usha committed suicide by consuming poison as such she died unnatural death.

#7. Now, this Court has to see whether there was any demand of dowry made by accused/ respondents if so, whether deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for non fulfillment of demand of dowry. First information report (Ex. A2) discloses that there is no mention that any of the accused/ respondents made any demand of dowry. However, it is alleged that the accused/respondents harassed 6 and committed cruelty against Smt. Usha. To prove said fact on behalf of the prosecution as many as four witnesses were got examined namely P.W.1 Pushpa Devi, P.W.2 Madan Lal, P.W.3 Ratan Lal and P.W.4 Saroj Bala.

#8. P.W.1 Pushpa Devi is real elder sister of Smt. Usha (deceased) who was married to Anoop Singh (elder brother of accused/ respondents Dharm Singh) in the same family as such, this witness P.W.1 Pushpa Devi was not only real elder sister of the deceased but also her sister-in-law. She can be said to be the witness who is equally related to both the sides. This witness (P.W.1 Pushpa Devi) has not supported the prosecution story. She has simply stated that her younger sister was happy in her matrimonial house but she was unwell and died. This witness got declared hostile by the prosecution. Much emphasis was given by learned Dy. Advocate General to letter (Ex. A1) written by the deceased to her father in an attempt to show that the deceased (Usha Devi) was not happy in her matrimonial house. I have gone through the 7 entire letter dated 27.03.1997 (Ex. A1) said to have been written by the deceased to her father. This letter nowhere discloses that any demand of dowry was made by anyone of the accused/respondents rather what it shows is that the two sisters after their marriage in the same family were not happy with each other. In the letter the deceased has made allegations against her real elder sister that she harasses her. It is alleged in it that the elder sister of the deceased did not allow her to come in her room, she did not allow her to touch anything in the house, and that other family members are under the influence of Pushpa Devi. Assuming what Usha has written in letter (Ex. A1) as true, it makes neither a case of 304B IPC, nor a case of 306 IPC, nor a case of 498A IPC, and nor a case of offence punishable under section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, at least as against accused/respondents Dharm Singh, Sultan Singh and Vidya Devi.

#9. P.W.2 Madan Lal, P.W.3 Ratan Lal, and P.W.4 Saroj Bala have supported the prosecution case but their testimony was rightly disbelieved 8 by the trial court in the light of the above facts discussed by this Court.

#10. Therefore, this Court finds no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. Parul (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 27.09.2012