Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State vs Parma Ram on 11 January, 2012
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
***
S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL No.177/2009 State of Rajasthan V/s. Parma Ram *** S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal under Sections 378(iii) & (i) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 *** Date of Judgment :: January 11, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Reportable Mr. O.P. Singharia PP for the State.
Mr. R.S. Gill for the respondent.
The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.05.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Hanumangarh whereby the learned Judge has acquitted Parmaram, the accused-respondent, for offences under Sections 498A and 304-B IPC.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 10.06.2006, Moolchand (P.W.3) had lodged a report at Police Station Hanumangarh Town wherein he had claimed 2 that his younger sister, Savitri Devi, was married to Parmaram four years back. He further alleged that on 09.06.2006 Parmaram had taken his sister to their farm, where a poisonous substance was administered to her. Therefore, he prayed that proceedings should be initiated against him. On the basis of this report, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C., were commenced and a murm FIR was registered. Nineteen days latter, on 29.06.2006, Sugana (P.W.1) filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, wherein she claimed that her younger daughter, Savitri Devi, was married to Parmaram four years ago. Although, they had given sufficient dowry at the time of marriage, however, Parmaram and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry so given. She further claimed that Parmaram and his family members used to physically, and emotionally torture her daughter. She further alleged that they had demanded Rs.10,000/- in cash by way of dowry. She further alleged that a Panchayat had taken place where her son-in-laws Gopiram, Sahibram, Krishan, Gurcharan, Mahendra, Ganeshram had attended. After the panchayat was held, Savitri returned back to her matrimonial home. During the course of marriage of four years, she gave birth to a child, Sunita, aged about three 3 years. Even after holding of the Panchayat, the family of Parmaram continued to treat her daughter with cruelty. She further claimed that her grand daughter, Santosh (P.W.2) had gone to live with her aunt (Mausi), Savitri Devi, her daughter. Santosh (P.W.2) informed her that on 09.06.2006, Parmaram, his mother and his sister-in-law assaulted Savitri Devi, the deceased, with sticks. Santosh further told her that they had taken away Savitri to their farm, where they administered poisonous substance. She further claimed that according to Santosh, Parmaram, his sister-in-law and his mother finally strangulated her daughter. Once she was informed, her elder son-in-law, Gopiram went to the village of Parmaram. Lastly, she further claimed that on 12.06.2006, she had gone to the office of Superintendent of Police. However, the police refused to register the case against Parmaram. The complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of the complaint, a formal FIR, FIR No.474/06, was chalked out for offence under Section 498A and 304B IPC.
After the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted only against Parmaram and not against his sister-in-law and against his mother. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and 4 submitted few documents. The defence did not examine any witness, but did submit a number of documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 15th May, 2008, the learned Judge acquitted Parmaram of the aforementioned offences. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court.
Mr. O.P. Singharia, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that the prosecution was required to prove three elements in order to make out a case for offence under Section 304-B IPC: firstly, the deceased had died within seven years of her marriage; secondly, the deceased had died under suspicious circumstances; thirdly that "soon before her death", the deceased was subjected to cruelty in connection with the dowry demands. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, Sugana (P.W.1), had clearly stated that Savitri was married to Parmaram just four years prior to her death. Hence, she died within seven years of her marriage. According to the testimony of Santosh (P.W.2), Savitri was administered poison by Parmaram. Moreover, according to the FSL report (Ex.P/18), the visra has shown the presence of insecticides. Thus, Savitri had died under suspicious circumstances. Moreover, Sugana (P.W.1), Gopiram (P.W.8) and Krishan (P.W.4) had clearly stated 5 that prior to her death, Savitri was subjected to mental and physical cruelties with regard to the dowry demand. Therefore, even the third element had been proven by the prosecution. Despite this overwhelming evidence, the learned Judge has still acquitted Parmaram for offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. Therefore, the impugned judgment needs to be interfered with.
On the other hand, Mr. R.S. Gill, the learned counsel for the respondent, has vehemently contended that on 10.06.2006, Moolchand Mehgwal, the brother of the deceased, had informed the police that his sister had died under suspicious circumstances. However, when the statement of Moolchand and other witnesses, who were close relatives of the deceased, were recorded, they did not utter a single word with regard to the demand of dowry. Secondly, after the inordinate delay of nineteen days, they filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate which was sent for further investigation to the police. The inordinate delay has not been explained by the prosecution. Hence, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thirdly, Sugana's testimonies has been contradicted by Krishan (P.W.4) who happened to be a neighbour. Forthly, the testimony of the prosecution is replete with contradictions. According to Sugana (P.W.1), 6 Santosh (P.W.2), Moolchand (P.W.3) and Gopiram (P.W.8), Savitri had sustained injuries on her body. However, according to the Dr. Jaspal (P.W.5), while conducting the post-mortem, the doctors did not notice a single injury on her body. Therefore, the ocular evidence is clearly contradicted by the medical evidence. Lastly, the prosecution has failed to prove that there was any dowry demand made "soon before the alleged death of Savitri". Thus, an essential element for constituting an offence under Section 304-B is conspicuously missing in the present case. Lastly, there is no evidence to prove that Savitri was subjected to physical and emotional cruelties. Thus, the learned counsel has supported the impugned judgment.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and examined the record.
It is, indeed, trite to state that the commission of an offence has to be informed to the police immediately after its occurrence. In case an allegation is made after some delay, its casts a doubt on the story of the prosecution. In the present case, if indeed, there were any instance of cruelty meted out to Savitri during four years of married life, obviously her brother - Moolchand, her 7 mother - Sugana (P.W.1), and her other relatives would have known about it. After all, the cruelties meted out to her daughter/sister is not a secret unknown to the family members. Therefore, it is expected of Moolchand and Sugana that at the very first instance, they would reveal the true facts of the case to the Executive Magistrate who had carried out the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. However, in the statement recorded by the said Magistrate, they did not reveal an iota of information with regard to any cruelty meted out to Savitri during her married life.
It is only after a delay of nineteen days, a story seems to have been developed by Sugana and by other family members against the accused-respondent. In fact, Sugana (P.W.1), in her cross-examination, has admitted the fact that she had contacted a lawyer who had assured her that "he would draft the complaint in such a manner as to ensure that Parmaram is never let out of the jail". She has further admitted that her testimony is based upon the complaint made by the lawyer. Obviously, she has custom tailored her testimony to the complaint which is based on the imagination of the lawyer and not upon concrete facts and considering her admission made in her cross-examination, she proves to be an unreliable witness. 8 Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the prosecution has failed to prove that during her lifetime, Savitri was being subjected to physical and emotional cruelties "soon before her death".
The prosecution has examined Santosh (P.W.2) as an eye-witness of the occurrence. Therefore, she happens to be the star witness of the prosecution. However, a bare perusal of her testimony clearly reveals that she is belied by other evidence available on record. Santosh (P.W.2) informs the Court that after she had lost her maternal grandfather (Nana), she had accompanied her maternal aunt (Masi), Savitri, and her husband, Parmaram, to their home. She further tells the Court that on the fateful day, Parmaram and Savitri, had a verbal altercation in the farm. She further claims that Parmaram had hit Savitri on the head at least ten times with a Kasiya (a sharp-edged weapon). Subsequently, he had brought her back home on a tractor. Thereafter, he had taken her to Hanumangarh in a jeep, and he had brought her dead body back home. Therefore, according to her, Parmaram had killed her. She further tells the Court that due to the injuries caused on Savitri, her cloths were stained with blood. She further tells the Court that while Savitri was being transported, she kept moaning, and subsequently 9 expired at Hanumangarh.
However, her testimony is belied by the testimony of Dr. Jaspal (P.W.5). According to the Doctor, he had carried out the post-mortem around 11:30 AM on 10.06.2006. During the post-mortem, they did not find any injury on her body. Hence, the body did not sustain any injury by sharp or blunt weapon. Still in order to discover the cause of death, visra was preserved and sent to the FSL. Lastly, according to him, they did not find any residue of any insecticide either on the face or on the chest of the deceased. Thus, the medical evidence contradicts the testimony of the star witness. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in not believing Santosh (P.W.2).
A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the prosecution has been able to establish only two of the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC, namely that Savitri had died within seven years of her marriage, as she had died after four years of her marriage. Secondly, she had died due to poison. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that she was subjected to cruelty for dowry demand. Since an essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC is conspicuously missing, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the 10 accused-respondent for offence under Section 304-B. Moreover, since infliction of cruelty has not been proved by the prosecution, the learned Judge was equally justified in acquitting the accused-respondent for offence under Section 498A IPC.
Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is devoid any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN) J.
A.Asopa/-