Dismissed

State v. Kalu Ram

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Mar 2015CR.A/282/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court analyzed discrepancies and contradictions in prosecution witness statements regarding the suicide of a bride. The court found the evidence highly discrepant and affirmed the trial court's acquittal of the accused charges of abetment to suicide and cruelty.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of acquittal by the learned trial court was affirmed.

State Vs Kalu Ram — Domestic Violence | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. Appeal No. 282 of 2009

¶3

Reserved on: 27.2.2015

¶4

Decided on : 4/03/2015

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant. Versus Kalu Ram & Others …..Respondents.

¶6

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

¶8

For the Appellant: Mr. M.A Khan, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. B.S Attri, Advocate.

¶9

Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

¶10

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 21.11.2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.18 of 2008 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

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

¶12

…2…

¶13

The facts, in brief, are that complainant Vidya Devi is resident of village Chanoun. Her husband Dile Ram was having two wives. Second wife of Dile Ram, namely, Smt. Ayodhya had died about ten years back. One son and one daughter Pushpa were born to Ayodhya. The marriage of Pushpa Devi was solemnized with Kalu Ram about seven years back as per Hindu rites and rituals. Pushpa Devi used to remain perturbed as she was unable to bear child. She used to visit her parental house from time to time. She disclosed the complainant one month prior to the incident that she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the accused persons, because she was unable to bear child. On 30.4.2007, a telephonic message was received by the complainant that Pushpa had taken ill and as such she should visit her house at village Leegan. She, along with her relatives, went to the house of Pushpa Devi. A number of villagers and relatives had assembled there. Pushpa Devi was lying dead in the verandah of the house. She enquired about the cause of death on which she was told that Pushpa had consumed poisonous substance and resultantly, she died. Pushpa Devi had committed

¶14

…3…

¶15

suicide on account of hers being maltreated and harassed by the accused persons. This incident was reported by her at Police Post, Patlikuhl on 30.4.2007 on which her statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C. was recorded. Statement of complainant was sent to Police Station, Kullu, on which F.I.R. was registered and investigation in the case started. One bottle of “Nuvan, Salwar, Kameej and Kotti” of deceased were taken into possession by the police in the presence of witnesses Ram Dei and Anup Ram from the spot. Inquest report was prepared by SI Sarwan Singh. Dead body was brought to Regional Hospital, Kullu, for conducting postmortem examination. Dr. Om Pal, Medical Officer, RH, Kullu conducted postmortem examination of deceased Pushpa alongwith Dr. Sushil Chander. A detailed postmortem examination report was prepared according to which deceased died owing to consumption of poison. Viscera was handed over to the police by Dr. Om Pal. Site plan of occurrence was also prepared. Viscera and clothes of deceased were sent to FSL, Junga for the purpose of examination. Organo phosphorous insecticide was detected in viscera.

¶16

…4…

¶17

On conclusion of investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused/respondents, challan was filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

The accused were charged for theirs having committed offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC by the learned trial Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶19

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded, in which they pleaded innocence. On closure of proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused were given an opportunity to adduce evidence in defence, and they chose not to adduce any evidence in defence.

¶20

On appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondents.

¶21

The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court. Shri M.A Khan,

¶22

…5…

¶23

learned Additional Advocate General, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court, are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, they are sequelled by gross misappreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findings of conviction and concomitantly, an appropriate sentence be imposed upon the accused/respondents.

¶24

On the other hand, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents-accused, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below, are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication.

¶25

This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

¶26

…6…

¶27

The marriage of deceased Pushpa Devi with accused Kalu Ram subsisted for about 8 years. No child was born out of the wedlock of deceased Pushpa with the accused Kalu Ram. The prosecution story is of the accused having actuated, instigated and fomented the commission of suicide by the deceased, hence abetted it, arising from their penal act of harassing the deceased for not bearing a child as also arising from the fact of threats meted out by accused Kalu Ram to the deceased to solemnize a second marriage. The purported instigation arising from the facts aforesaid led the deceased to consume Organo Phosphorous insecticide. A perusal of Post Mortem Report comprised in Ex. PH underscores the factum of the demise of the deceased having been begotten on account of consumption by her of Organo Phosphorus insecticide as detected to be occurring in her viscera. The prosecution case would attain sanctity only in the event of an incisive evaluation of testimonies of the prosecution witnesses underlining the factum of theirs having not indulged in a bout of either inter-se or intra-se contradictions comprised respectively in their

¶28

…7…

¶29

examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations, as also in their respective testimonies deposed on oath.

¶30

Primarily the foundational fact hence constituting the anvil of the prosecution case is the statement of PW-1 comprised in Ex. PA on strength whereof FIR qua the occurrence was lodged. The FIR is of 1.5.2007. Consequently, the complainant PW-1 was enjoined to depose on oath events in tandem with those purportedly attributed to her in her statement comprised in Ex. PA. Besides she was hence, obliged to depose on oath that she had reported the incident to the police on 30.4.2007 in quick succession whereto an FIR qua the incident attributing an inculpatory role to the accused was lodged. However, in her deposition on oath comprised in her cross-examination she has deposed that her statement was recorded only on 4.5.2007. Consequently, she has omitted to lend credence, rather has controverted the factum of any disclosure by her to the police in her purported statement comprised in Ex. PA. Hers hence, contradicting the factum of hers having made a statement comprised in Ex. PA, fillips an inference that the contents of the

¶31

…8…

¶32

FIR lodged qua the occurrence in quick succession to Ex. PA stands both belied as well as contradicted. As a corollary then the anvil of the prosecution case stands dismantled. Even otherwise, even if, her deposition comprised in her examinationin-chief is may be in tandem with the prosecution version of the accused meeting ill-treatment or maltreatment to the deceased on account of hers suffering from sterility as also on account of threats having been meted to her by accused Kalu Ram to hence solemnize a second marriage, as such, then theirs constituting facts for the deceased to consume instigatory poison. Nonetheless, when in her deposition comprised in her examination-in-chief she has deposed that she had not disclosed to the police the fact of the deceased having come to be harassed by the accused for not bearing a child rather when she has in her deposition comprised in her cross-examination communicated therein that she had disclosed to the police that the deceased used to remain perturbed for not bearing a child without having proceeded to also depose that hers lack of mental poise and equanimity was begotten on account of hers being put to a

¶33

…9…

¶34

trauma at the instance of the accused for hers not begetting a child, constrains an apt conclusion that in the deceased remaining perturbed and loosing her equanimity arose not on account of hers being harassed, humiliated or maltreated by any of the accused. Sequelly, hers being perturbed is to be attributed entirely to self abnegation or the mental trauma which beset her was self engineered.

¶35

Moreover, the prosecution has also relied upon the deposition of PW-2. Though, she in her examination in chief has lent corroboration to the prosecution version. However her deposition comprised in her examination-in-chief wherein she has in tandem with the prosecution version attributed an inculpatory role to the accused is not either got to be read in isolation or fragmentarily, rather it has to be read in entwinement with and in conjunction with her deposition comprised in her cross-examination. Only a combined reading of her deposition comprised in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination would enable this Court to disinter her veracity. However, when the fact of attribution by PW-2 in her examination-in-chief of an

¶36

…10…

¶37

inculpatory role to the accused stands in her deposition comprised in her cross examination eroded, comprised in the factum of hers having deposed therein qua the deceased having one year prior to the incident divulged to her the fact of hers having been meted harassment by the accused for not bearing a child results in the upsurging of an inference, that her omission to disclose the fact earlier to either the Panchayat or to report the matter to the police, per-se conveys her reticence, which prolonged reticence on her part gives play to the deduction that PW-2 has in her deposition in her cross-examination indulged in

¶38

a bout of invention and concoction while attributing an inculpatory role to the accused. Even otherwise, even if, assuming that the deposition of PW-2 acquires tenacity, nonetheless in the face of the purported disclosure by the deceased to her qua the purported instigatory fact attributed to the accused having occurred one year prior to the occurrence, consequently given the remoteness inter-se the initial disclosure qua the germination or arising of the purported actuatory cause for the deceased to commit suicide and its consummation, the

¶39

…11…

¶40

prime and preeminent element of proximity inter-se the purported instigatory facts and the occurrence stands unsubstantiated. In face thereof the effect if any, of her deposition comprised in her examination-in-chief stands effaced. Even

¶41

the deposition of PW-3 looses its credibility in the face of hers having in her cross-examination deposed that the disclosure qua the incident had come to be unraveled or unfolded by her for the first time in the Court. As such, the disclosure qua the incident by her only in Court constitutes the disclosure to be acquiring the taint of embellishment and improvement. Besides, when she in her cross-examination has also proceeded to depose that her deposition comprised in her examination-in-chief wherein she has attributed an inculpatory role to the accused has been made at the behest of PW-1, renders it to be a wholly concocted and tutored version leaving it bereft of naturalness. Consequently, it cannot be imbued any credibility.

¶42

The aforesaid discussion brings to the fore the fact that the prosecution evidence is highly discrepant and has

¶43

…12…

¶44

abysmally failed to prove the charge to which the accused were subjected to trial.

¶45

A wholesome analysis of the evidence on record portrays that the appreciation of evidence as done by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity and absurdity nor it can be said that the learned trial Court in recording findings of acquittal has committed any legal misdemeanor, in as much, as, it having mis-appreciated the evidence on record or omitted to appreciate relevant and admissible evidence. In aftermath this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court merit inference.

¶46

In view of above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed, and, the judgment of the learned trial Court is affirmed. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.

¶47

(Rajiv Sharma) Judge

¶48

4/03/2015 (Sureshwar Thakur) (Jai/priti) Judge

¶49

…13…

State v. Kalu Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Kalu Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmir Singh Vs State of Hp

Senjam Nongdren Khomba Singh Vs State

State Vs Piar Singh

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Hp

Chiranjee Lal Vs State of Hp

Ghanshyam Thakur Vs Hp State Forest Corporation