Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Nath And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 7 March, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ2244, II(2005)DMC464
Author: Mehtab S. Gill
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill, Nirmal Yadav
JUDGMENT Mehtab S. Gill, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 740-DB of 2002 has been filed against the judgment dated 10-9-2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri whereby appellant Pardeep Kumar was convicted under Sections 302 and 304-B I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 I. P. C. No separate sentence under Section 304-B I. P. C. was awarded to appellant Pardeep Kumar. Appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar were convicted under Section 304-B I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 7 years. Though all the three accused were convicted under Section 498-A I. P. C. also, but no separate sentence was awarded to them, as they had been sentenced for the major sentence.
2. The prosecution case is unfolded by PW-4 Kewal Krishan, complainant. He has stated that he is a resident of Ambala City. He is the Director of G. G. Flour Mills. He has four daughters and two sons. Marriage of his eldest daughter Suman Rani alias Anamika was solemnised with appellant Pardeep Kumar alias Raju on 19-10-1996 in Laxmi Palace at Patiala. As per asking of the appellants, dowry and Istri Dhan was given according to the capacity of the complainant. On the festival of Karva Chauth, complainant's daughter Anamika along with Pardeep Kumar and Anamika's father-in-law and mother-in-law came to their residence. Sufficient articles were given on Karva Chauth. On that day, Anamika told the complainant that her husband Pardeep Kumar who was running a shop at Yamuna Nagar in the name and style of New Punjab Tractors, wanted to take her to Yamuna Nagar. He demanded colour T. V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator. Thereafter his daughter went to her in-law's place in Village Dhanola, District Sangrur (Punjab). 10 to 15 days thereafter, complainant's daughter rang them up from Dhanola that she along with her husband were shifting to Yamuna Nagar and the articles demanded should be sent to her at Yamuna Nagar. Complainant Kewal Krishan along with Mohinder Pal son of Bachan Lal resident of Ambala City came to Yamuna Nagar. They purchased colour T. V. washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator and handed them over to appellant Pardeep Kumar in his house. Complainant's wife was operated upon at Ambala for some ailment. Anamika came to see her mother. Anamika did not look well. Complainant Kewal Krishan enquired about her health. Anamika stated that her husband Pardeep Kumar, father-in-law and Dever (brother-in-law) Parveen Kumar were threatening that if she waned to remain alive, she should get Rs. 2 lacs from her father, as they wanted to expand their business at Yamuna Nagar. This demand was met and complainant gave Rs. 50,000/- and requested that he will pay the remaining amount after arranging for it. This amount was given about a month prior to the death of Anamika. About 15 days before her death, Anamika made a telephone call to the complainant that her father-in-law Prem Nath had told her husband Pardeep Kumar that if Anamika did not arrange for the remaining amount, she should be eliminated, he would arrange for everything and perform his second marriage. Again on 23-1-1997, complainant's daughter gave a telephonic call to the complainant, that if the remaining amount was not arranged within 2/3 days, she would be eliminated.
3. On 25-1-1997 at about 9.30 p.m. PW-3 Anil Kumar gave a telephonic call to the complainant that Anamika had got burnt with a gas cylinder. Complainant made a telephonic call to his brother Suresh Pal and his father Rameshwar Dass at Cheeka to reach Ambala. On their arrival from Cheeka, complainant along with them left for the house of his daughter at Yamuna Nagar, On reaching there, he saw his daughter lying dead on a double-bed. Besides her were lying a gas cylinder, match-sticks and half burnt papers.
4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box PW-1 Dr. B.S. Deswal who performed the post-mortem on the dead-body of Anamika, PW-2 Anil Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass brother of the complainant, PW-3 Anil Kumar son of Brij Lal distant relative of the complainant, Pw-4 Kewal Krishan, PW-5 ASI Dalip Kumar, PW-6 H. C. Bhag Singh, PW-7 Constable Mohinder Singh, PW-8 Constable Bharat Singh, PW-9 Jagvir Singh, PW-10 Mulakh Raj, PW-11 Charan Singh, PW-12 Ashwani Kumar, PW-13 Mohinder Pal, PW-14 SI Mukesh Kumar, and PW-15 Inspector Jagdish Chander.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that, it is undisputed that marriage of the appellant and Anamika was performed on 19-10-1996. Anamika died on 25-1-1997. Karva Chauth ceremony was performed on 30-10-1996. Before 30-10-1996, i.e. the day of Karva Chauth ceremony, there was no dispute as to demand of dowry between the husband and wife. It was after Karva Chauth ceremony i.e. 30-10-1996, that a demand of dowry was made.
6. Anamika (since deceased) stated to her father PW-4 Kewal Krishan that her husband Pardeep Kumar appellant was demanding colour T. V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator, because he wanted to shift to Yamuna Nagar. Learned counsel has argued that appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar never came into contact with deceased Anamika and Pardeep Kumar after 30-10-1996. There could not have been any demand for dowry on their part especially colour T. V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator, as these were needed, not by them, but for argument sake, by Pardeep Kumar.
7. It has come in evidence that the house of PW-3 Anil Kumar son of Brij Lal was very close to the house of the deceased in Yamuna Nagar. It was at a walking distance of 5 to 7 minutes from the house of deceased. He reached the place of occurrence on 25-1-1997 at 9 p.m. on the asking of the complainant (PW-4).
8. The Investigating Officer PW-14 SI Mukesh Kumar has stated in his testimony that while he was posted as SI in Police Post, Rampura, P. S. City Yamuna Nagar, on 25-1-1997, he received a message that a lady named Anamika had died due to the bursting of a cooking gas cylinder. He received this message at 9.35 p.m. He along with a police party reached the place of occurrence. PW-3 Anil Kumar reached there at 9 p.m. on 25-1-1997. PW-3 Anil Kumar and PW-14 SI Mukesh Kumar were together till the morning of 26-1-1997. PW-4 Kewal Krishan reached the house of his daughter on 26-1-1997 at 3.45 a.m. Statement of PW-4 Kewal Krishan was recorded at 8.10 a.m. on 26-1-1997. Consultations and confabulations were taking place between the complainant party and the police from 9 p.m. on 25-1-1997 till 8.10 a.m. of 26-1-1997. Appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar were roped in. The only persons living in the house were appellant Pardeep Kumar and deceased Anamika. Appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar were living in Village Dhanola, District Sangrur (Punjab).
9. The allegations against appellants to Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar have not been substantiated. In his statement recorded before the police on the basis of which the F. I. R. was recorded. PW-4 Kewal Krishan has stated that his daughter Anamika told him that Parveen Kumar, her husband, wanted a colour T. V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator for their house in Yamuna Nagar. These articles were delivered to appellant Pardeep Kumar in his house at Yamuna Nagar. The allegations of demand for dowry made against appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar are vague and general in nature. In his statement before the police, PW-4 Kewal Krishan stated that his daughter's husband Pardeep Kumar, her father-in-law Prem Nath and devar Parveen Kumar, all the three had been issuing threats that if she wanted to remain alive, she should get Rs. 2 lacs from her father. In his testimony before the Court, PW-4 Kewal Krishan has repeated what he had stated before the police, i.e. on his asking, his daughter Anamika told him that her husband, her father-in-law and her Devar (brother-in-law) were demanding Rs. 2 lacs on the pretext of expanding their business at Yamuna Nagar. They were threatening her that she would be killed, if the demand was not made out. Apart from these demands, nothing has been attributed to appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar.
10. PW-2 Anil Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass in his testimony before the Court has not named appellant Pardeep Kumar, but has stated that he had come to know through his brother PW-4 Kewal Krishan that deceased-Anamika was being subjected to harassment for dowry by her father-in-law, mother-in-law Kanta Rani and devar Parveen Kumar, maternal uncle Pawan Kumar and mausa Raghbir Saran.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated that an application was moved under Section 319 by the prosecution for summoning of Pawan Kumar and Raghbir Saran, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, this application was withdrawn.
12. Learned counsel for the State has stated that going through the testimony of PW-4 Kewal Krishan it is clear that there was a demand for colour T. V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator. These articles were bought and handed over to appellant Pardeep Kumar. The business being run by appellant Pardeep Kumar was a joint business and a family firm. It is not unnatural for the appellants who were interested in the family business, to demand Rs. 2 lacs to expand it. It has come in the report of PW-1 Dr. B.S. Deswal that death was due to asphyxia. Deceased died in the house of appellant Pardeep Kumar, her husband. Demand for dowry was made within a few days of marriage. Appellants being clever persons, did not demand the dowry before the marriage, but after the marriage had been solemnised, they started doing so. PW-4 Kewal Krishan was in the process of arranging the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- when his daughter was murdered by the appellants. She was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants soon before her death. Intention of the appellants to finish her life had been made clear by them to Anamika. Not once, but several times, she conveyed it to her father (PW-4) that the appellants will not let her stay alive, if he does not pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Appellants tried to make it a case of burning with gas cylinder. But from the testimony of the doctor (PW-1), it is clear that death of Anamika had nothing to do with her burns. Appellants wanted to build up a case of suicide, which they were not successful.
13. Learned counsel for the State further stated that no delay has been caused in lodging of the F. I. R. PW-3 Anil Kumar son of Brij Lal did not record his statement before the Investigating Officer, as it is natural that relatives would like the father of the deceased to take a decision as to whether an F. I. R. was to be registered or not. It was PW-4 Kewal Krishan who knew all the facts, as also the reasons for which is daughter had been killed. The best person to record the F. I. R. was PW-4 Kewal Krishan. PW-4 Kewal Krishan reached the place of occurrence at 3.45 p.m. on 26-1-1997. It took some time for him to make his statement before the police, as it was a matter where his own son-in-law was involved. He was only being cautious.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with their assistance.
15. Occurrence took place at about 9. p.m. on 25-1-1997 in House No. 923, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). Statement of PW-4 Kewal Krishan was recorded at 8.10 a.m. on 26-1-1997. The formal F. I. R. Ex. PE/1 was recorded at 8.30 a.m. on 26-1-1997. Special Report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 1.20 p.m. on 26-1-1997. There is no explanation coming forward from the side of the prosecution as to the delay caused between the time of occurrence and the special report reaching the Illaqa Magistrate. Delay is about 16 hours.
16. PW-3 Anil Kumar son of Brij Lal who is a relative of the complainant (PW-4), has stated that his house is at a walking distance of 5/7 minutes from the house of appellant Pardeep Kumar. Deceased Anamika had been coming to his house being his niece. He came to know about the accident on 25-1-1997 at 9 p.m. and he sent a telephonic message to his brother PW-4 Kewal Krishan. He reached the house of appellant Pardeep Kumar at about 9.30 p.m. He waited for Kewal Krishan till 4 a.m. in the morning. The police had reached the place of occurrence at 9.30 p.m. on 25-1-1997. He did not tell anything to the police. All that he told the police was that Anamika was his niece. Beyond this statement, neither did the police ask anything, nor did Anil Kumar tell them anything. His statement was recorded on the next day i.e. 26-1-1997 in the morning. When he informed PW-4 Kewal Krishan, he knew that Anamika had died, but he did not specifically disclose this to Kewal Krishan. All that he said was that Anamika had met with an accident.
17. PW-14 ASI Mukesh Kumar has stated in his testimony that he reached the place of occurrence on receiving a message at 9. p.m. on 25-1-1997 that a lady by the name Anamika had died due to bursting of gas cylinder. Parents of Anamika arrived at 3.45 a.m. on 26-1-1997. PW-4 Kewal Krishan's statement was recorded at 8.10 a.m. on 26-1-1997. Body of the deceased was lying on a bed. Chuni was wrapped around her neck. On the waist, there was a burning spot. He at that stage, did not suspect that Anamika had been murdered. He suspected that some criminal offence had been committed. The gas cylinder was lying in a horizontal manner on the bed.
18. The Special Report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 1.20 p.m. on 26-1-1997. PW-11 Constable Charan Singh who took the special report, though has been examined, but he has not given any explanation as to the delay in special report reaching the Illaqa Magistrate. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station and the judicial Courts is within radius of 3 to 4 kilometres.
19. No doubt Anamika had been murdered, but the unexplained delay in lodging of the F. I. R. coupled with this aspect that PW-3 Anil Kumar and the Investigating Officer were together for more than six hours, but the statement of PW-3 Anil Kumar was not recorded, and further PW-4 Kewal Krishan who had reached at 3.45 a.m. on 26-1-1997, his statement was also not recorded till 8.10 a.m., casts a doubt in the prosecution case. Consultations and confabulations were taking place.
20. Appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar, the father-in-law and devar of the deceased respectively, lived in Village Dhanola (District Sangrur, Punjab). Appellant Pardeep Kumar lived along with deceased Anamika in Yamuna Nagar. Business was being run by appellant Pardeep Kumar at Yamuna Nagar. Apart from the statement of PW-4 Kewal Krishan that "on my asking Anamika told me that her husband Pardeep Kumar, her father-in-law Prem Nath and her brother-in-law Parveen Kumar were making a demand of Rs. two lacs on the pretext of expanding their business at Yamuna Nagar. She also told me that they were threatening to meet the demand in case she wanted to remain alive", no other evidence has come forward regarding demand of dowry by appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar.
21. Learned counsel for the State has laid much stress on the point that business being run was a joint family business (a family firm). PW-4 Kewal Krishan in his testimony before the Court, is not clear as to whether appellant Pardeep Kumar had an agency of Lubricants, and who was looking after the firm, either Pardeep Kumar or Parveen Kumar.
22. During investigation, PW-4 Kewal Krishan had named Pardeep Kumar's mother Kanta Rani, maternal-uncle Pawan Kumar and mausa Raghbir Saran as culprits. The Investigation Agency found the allegations against these three persons not to be correct and did not challan them. The complainant was wanting to rope in every member of the family.
23. Appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar have been convicted under Section 304-B I. P. C. Though the death in this case has taken place within seven years of the marriage, and it is also clear that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband, but the prosecution has failed to prove that she was harassed and the demand of dowry was made by appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar also. The demand of articles namely colour T. V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator was for the house of Pardeep Kumar. Rs. 2 lacs was for the purpose of expanding the business of Pardeep Kumar at Yamuna Nagar. Appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar did not have any role in this demand. From the testimony of PW-3 Anil Kumar son of Brij Lal and PW-4 Kewal Krishan, as also PW-2 Anil Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass that the demand soon before her death was made only by appellant, Pardeep Kumar husband. She was being coerced by her husband to meet his unlawful demand of dowry.
24. Death has taken place in the house of appellant Pardeep Kumar. Demand for colour T. V., washing machine, Godrej almirah and a refrigerator and Rs. 2 lacs to expand his business has been amply proved by the testimony of PW-4 Kewal Krishan, PW-2 Anil Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass and PW-3 Anil Kumar son of Brij Lal. Delay in lodging of the F. I. R. and the special report reaching the Illaqa Magistrate is of little consequence, when we see that the deceased was killed in the house of appellant Pardeep Kumar. The time of occurrence is 9 p. m. in the month of January. Appellant Pardeep Kumar tried to make it a case of accident, but he has not been successful to do so. Doctor (PW-1) who performed the postmortem, in his testimony, has stated that there was a ligature mark around the neck, below thyroid cartilage, which was present all around the neck. Width was 3/4th inch. Base of ligature mark was dark reddish in colour, acchynosis and abrasions were present at edges of mark. On dissection, there was acchynosis (sic) of subcutaneous tissues and there was injury to neck muscle and carotid vessels. There were superficial injuries on some parts of the body. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was asyphyxia due to strangulation which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death.
25. Intention of appellant Pardeep Kumar was clear on the day when the Karva Chauth ceremony had taken place. PW-4 Kewal Krishan, to keep his son-in-law happy, acceded to the demand. Later on, a demand of Rs. 2 lacs was made, so that appellant Pardeep Kumar could expand his business. On the demand not being met, Anamika, a young girl of 20 years, was murdered by her husband Pardeep Kumar for his lust, as his demand for money was not being fulfilled.
26. It is clear from the testimony of PW-2 Anil Kumar son of Rameshwar Dass, PW-3 Anil Kumar son of Brij Lal, PW-4 Kewal Krishan that demand of dowry qua appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar was in general terms. No specific demand or role has been attributed to them. They have been roped in.
27. Appeal qua appellants Prem Nath and Parveen Kumar succeeds. Both these appellants are acquitted of the charges.
28. Appeal qua appellant Pardeep Kumar fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Pardeep Kumar awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge shall stand intact.