Dismissed

State v. Soni Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Nov 2014CR.A/592/2008

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

the reporters of the local papers may be…

What the court decided

AI extract

State Vs Soni Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 592/2008 Reserved on: 30.10.2014 Decided on : 3.11.2014

¶3

---------------------------------- State of Himachal Prades	---------------------------------------------------- h …………….Appellant
	Versus
Soni Kumar and another	……….Respondents
---------------------------------- Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sures	---------------------------------------------------- Sharma, Judge hwar Thakur, Judge
Whether approved for repor	ting? Yes.
---------------------------------- For the Appellant :	---------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG.
For the Respondents :	Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate
Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

¶4

This appeal is instituted by the State against the judgment dated 28.5.2008, rendered by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, in Sessions Case No. 4-G/VII/2006, whereby the respondents-accused (herein after referred to as "the accused" for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with section 34 IPC, have been acquitted.

¶5

The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the statement of PW-1 Amar Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. vide Ext. PW-1/C. According to him, his daughter Kalpana was married about 4 years back with accused Soni Kumar son of Munshi Ram, resident of Village Saloha. His daughter had one daughter aged 3 years and 1 son aged nine months. He has given sufficient dowry to his daughter. After some days of marriage, accused started giving beatings to Kalpana Devi. They used to harass her. His daughter disclosed these facts to him as well as to her mother and

¶6

¶7

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? .

¶8

¶9

brothers whenever she visited their house. False acquisitions were made against his daughter. She was denied maintenance. He had taken up the matter with the Panchayat. On 19.6.2005, at about 8.30 PM, he received telephonic information from Pradhan that his daughter had died by drowning while washing the clothes. He went to the house alongwith the co-villagers and members of Gram Panchayat. He found the dead body of Kalpana Devi lying on the rock in the Nallah. She had received injuries. The In-laws of his daughter were talking about second marriage of Sonu. FIR was registered on the basis of Ext. PW-1/C. The police visited the spot. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. The police also took into possession one pair of Chappal, one Thapi, one bucket containing clothes including clothes which were lying at the spot. The police had also taken the photographs of the spot. The police had also taken into possession compromise mentioned as “ Bahami Razinama ”. The report of the FSL was obtained and thereafter, the matter was investigated. The police on completion of the investigation, put up the challan before the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

¶10

The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case. Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the accused persons was recorded. The accused have denied the prosecution allegations. According to them they were falsely implicated. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 28.5.2008.

¶11

Mr. Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons. On the other hand, Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate, appearing for the accused, has supported the judgment dated 28.5.2008.

¶12

¶13

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

¶14

PW-1 Amar Singh has deposed that his daughter was married to the accused Soni Kumar in the year 2001. She was maintained properly for 2 ½ years. Thereafter, no maintenance was given to her. She was given beatings. He has taken up the matter with the Panchayat. He had sent his son on 19.6.2005 to enquire about the welfare of his daughter. The son came back at 1.30/2.00 PM. He disclosed that his daughter was apprehending danger to her life. On 19.6.2005, at 8.30/9.00 PM, he received information from the Ward Member Smt. Bhago Devi that his daughter had died by drowning. She further informed that the body of his daughter was lying on the rock. There was no member from her in-laws present on the spot. He has noticed injuries over eye and there was bleeding from her nose. Her arm was found fractured. There were other injuries on the back side of the body. In his cross examination he has deposed that he disclosed to the police that he had sent his son to the house of his daughter on 19.6.2005. Volunteered that the police did not hear their version. He was confronted with statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Ext. PW-1/C, where it is not so recorded. He also admitted in his cross examination that accused used to go early in the morning to the shop and come back late in the evening. He used to visit the house of his daughter after some interval to enquire about her welfare. He has admitted that his daughter has never moved any application for maintenance against the accused before any authority. He has never made any complaint before any authority of giving beatings to his daughter.

¶15

PW-2 Sudha Kaundal, deposed that she visited the spot

¶16

and found that the deceased was lying dead on the rock. There were

¶17

¶18

injuries on the forehead and arm of the deceased. She was bleeding from her nose. The police have taken into possession, one washing soap, and wooden plank “Thapi’. These were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-2/A.

¶19

PW-3 Susheel Kumar deposed that whenever his sister Kalpana visited her parental house, she used to disclose that she was being beaten up by her husband and mother-in-law and even sometimes, she was denied food and the matter was reported to the Panchayat. On 19.6.2005, he went to the house of his sister Kalpana to find out about her welfare. She disclosed that she has been threatened by the accused. The accused used to give her beatings. When he visited the house of his sister, he also visited the water source. He came back to the house at 1.30. A telephonic message was received disclosing that his sister Kalpana had died. His family members, including villagers went to the spot and found the dead body of his sister in the Nallah. In his cross examination he admitted that he and his brother as well as his father were frequent visitors to the house of the deceased. He also admitted that accused Soni Kumar had filed complaint before the Panchayat against his sister and his brother Lekh Raj, in which the compromise had been arrived at.

¶20

PW-4 Pritma Devi deposed that they had taken the matter before Gram Panchayat and representatives of Gram Panchayat went to the accused where the compromise had been arrived at. She disclosed that on 19.6.2005, she sent her son to find out the welfare of her daughter in her in-laws house. He told her that he met his sister while she was going to bring water. He disclosed that his sister was apprehending threat to her life. They were informed that their daughter had died. In her cross examination, she admitted that they

¶21

¶22

never made any application or complaint before any authority against the accused.

¶23

PW-5 Dr. Puran Chand has conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He issued post mortem report Ext. PW-5/D. According to him, the injuries were ante mortem in nature caused by blunt weapon within a duration of 24 hours. According to his opinion, the deceased died to ante mortem drowning.

¶24

PW-6 Bhago Devi stated that she received a telephonic information from Pradhan Gram Panchayat Gummer to the effect that Kalpana Devi had died. She informed the police and also parents of the deceased. Thereafter, she went to the village Saloha. In her crossexamination she admitted that the close relationship with the parents of the deceased.

¶25

PW-7 Ram Lok deposed that after the marriage, accused Soni Kumar started giving beatings to Kalpana Devi as the father of deceased had told him 3-4 times about the beatings. He went on 27.5.2004 to Gram Panchayat Haroli and Razinama (compromise) had taken place. The compromise is Ext. PW-6/A. In his cross examination he admitted that deceased Kalpana had never made any written complaint against the accused before their Gram Panchayat.

¶26

Statements of PW-8 HC Ravi Kumar, PW-9 HHC Thakru Ram and PW-10 Rakesh Kumar are formal in nature.

¶27

PW-11 SI Ranjeet Singh has carried out the investigation of the case. He visited the spot on 20.6.2005. He recorded the statement of PW-1 Amar Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C. He took photographs of the dead body. He prepared inquest reports Ext. PW5/B and Ext. PW-5/C. He got the post mortem conducted. He took into possession “Thapi” (wooden plank) and clothes of the deceased. He also took into possession one application for ‘Razinama’ Ext. PW-

¶28

¶29

1/B. In his cross-examination he deposed that when he reached the spot, the dead body had already been lying on the rock. He was told that the dead body was taken out from the water and depth of the water was 15 feet from where the dead body was taken out. He also admitted that Bihari Lal had disclosed in his statement that accused Soni Kumar had taken out dead body of deceased from water. He has also admitted that Kultar Singh deposed in his presence that accused Soni Kumar had been locating the dead body of the deceased. The water was deep.

¶30

What emerges from the facts enumerated herein above is that the marriage between Soni Kumar and Kalpana Devi was solemnized in the year 2001. The relations between them were cordial for 2 ½ years. Thereafter, accused started giving beatings to deceased Kalpana Devi. The statement of PW-1 Amar Singh was recorded under section 154 Cr.P.C. He deposed that he had sent his son Susheel Kumar on 19.6.2005 to enquire about the welfare of his daughter. PW-3 Susheel Kumar has also deposed that he went to his sister’s house on 19.6.2005 to enquire about her welfare. PW-4 Pritma Devi, mother of deceased deposed that on 19.6.2005, she sent her son to find out the welfare of her daughter. There is no such averment contained in Ext. PW-1/C. In case PW-3, Susheel Kumar was sent to visit the house of Kalpana Devi, it should have been stated in Ext. PW-1/C. PW-1 Amar Singh, PW-3 Susheel Kumar and PW-4 Pritma Devi have made improvements in their statements. According to PW-1 Amar Singh there are no specific instances given when the accused has given beatings to deceased Kalpana Devi. The averments made are vague. PW-1 Amar Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that he has never made any complaint before any authority against the accused about the beatings given to his daughter. He has also

¶31

¶32

admitted that his daughter has never made any application seeking maintenance against the accused. PW-4 Pritma Devi has also deposed that they never made any application /complaint before any authority against the accused.

¶33

PW-6 Bhago Devi is closely related to the family of the deceased. PW-7 Ram Lok has admitted that Kalpana Devi has never made any written complaint against the accused before their Panchayat. The deceased has died due to drowning. The drowning was ante mortem. The deceased has received certain injuries. But these injuries could be attributed by falling into the water, as per the statement of PW-5 Dr. Puran Chand. She had gone to wash clothes. The water at the spot was very deep. The possibility of her slipping into the water cannot be ruled out. The Prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have treated the deceased with cruelty. The deceased has never moved an application for maintenance etc. before any authority. Thus, it can safely be presumed that the deceased was never driven to commit suicide by the accused. In order to prove cruelty, there has to be series of events. However, in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was meted out cruelty by the accused.

¶34

Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons. The accused persons have been acquitted by a well reasoned judgment dated 28.5.2008 of the learned trial Court.

¶35

Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

¶36

November 03, 2014 (Sureshwar Thakur) (karan) Judge

¶37

State v. Soni Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State v. Soni Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Vs Ramesh Chand

State Vs Manohar Lal

Roop Singh Vs State of Hp

State Vs Sunil Kumar

Kushal Singh Rana Vs State of H.P

Deepak Kumar Vs State of H.P