Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana on 21 November, 2011
Author: K.C. Puri
Bench: K.C.Puri
Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002
Date of decision : 21.11.2011.
Dinesh Kumar and another
................ Appellant
vs.
State of Haryana
................. Respondent
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Sh. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Anju Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh. Munish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
K.C. PURI, J.
Accused/appellants Dinesh Kumar and Amar Nath have directed this appeal against the judgment 20.4.2002 and order dated 23.4.2002 passed by Shri B.B.Parsoon, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala vide which they have been convicted under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 498-A, IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 2 period of three months and also sentenced under Section 304-B, IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court acquitted co-accused-Mohan Lal and Smt.Raksha Devi from the charges levelled against them after giving them benefit of doubt. Appellants- Dinesh Kumar and Amar Nath were also acquitted from charges under Sections 302 and 406 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that Smt. Kirna Devi daughter of complainant Sat Pal Singh was married to accused Dinesh Kumar in the month of November 1997. Accused Mohan Lal is brother of Dinesh Kumar, whereas Raksha Devi and Amar Nath are mother and father respectively of Dinesh Kumar. After some time of marriage, all the aforesaid accused had started maltreating Kirna Devi for bringing less dowry. She was tortured and treated with cruelty. She narrated her tale of woes to the complainant and other family members also. They showed their helplessness and requested the accused not to raise unreasonable demand of scooter but the accused continued to maltreat Smt. Kirna. On 4.4.2001 at about noon time an information was received by the complainant that his daughter had died. On receipt of this information, he accompanied with his brother Sadhu Ram and son Surya Parkash went to village Pasiala i.e. to her in-laws. They found dead body of Smt. Kirna in the verandah. It was observed that she had been killed by giving some poison. On the basis of statement of Sat Pal Singh, FIR was registered. Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was got conducted. Site was inspected. Inquest report was prepared. Witnesses were examined. Report from the Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 3 Forensic Science Laboratory regarding analysis was received. Formal FIR was recorded. The accused were arrested and after completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented for trial.
3. Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt vide his commitment order dated 31.7.2001 committed the case to the Court of Session for trial of the accused as offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short - the IPC) was involved.
4. On commitment, all the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 304-B, 498-A and 406 of the IPC by the learned trial Court, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Constable Ram Singh (PW-1), HC Ram Singh (PW-2), SI Darshan Pal Singh (PW-3), Constable Ram Saran (PW-4), Constable Sultan Singh (PW-
5), Jagpal Singh, Naib Tehsildar (PW-6), Constable Sukhdev Raj (PW-7), Gurdial Singh, Inspector, Food & Civil Supplies, Kesri (PW-8), HC Surinder Singh (PW-9), Constable Bhag Singh (PW-10), Constable Sant Ram (PW-11), Dr.P.K.Nigam (PW-12), Raj Kumar (PW-13), Dr.Shashi Tripathi, M.O. Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt (PW-14), Sadhu Ram (PW-15), Sat Pal (PW-16) Surya Parkash (PW-17), ASI Janak Singh (PW-18) and closed its evidence.
6. In their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded their false implication. Accused/appellant Dinesh Kumar has further stated as under :- Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 4
" It is false case. Kirna Devi could not adjust herself in the family of the accused and was not happy with me, as she wanted to marry a person of her choice in Govt. Service. I am a matriculate and belongs to an agriculturist family. The deceased Kirna Devi was a girl of modern type and was not accustomed to live in the family of cultivators. She therefore could not adjust herself in the family of the accused. She, therefore, committed suicide. The accused or his other family members never demanded any scooter from Kirna Devi or her parents nor they tortured her for bringing low quality dowry articles. Mohan Lal accused was aged 16 years and three months at the time of my marriage with Kirna Devi. He was a student of ninth class at that time. All the family members have been ropped in this case. The complainant's party in collusion with the police have changed the case of suicide into a case of dowry death in order to blackmail the accused and defame them. I have also purchased Kisan Vikas Patra in the name of Kirna Devi deceased of Rs.1000/- and Rs.1500/- in her saving account. I am innocent."
7. The other accused also adopted the stand of Dinesh Kumar accused. However, they examined Prem Singh, DW-1, Dr.Rakesh Aggarwal DW-2, Ajmer Singh DW-3 and Reghbir Singh DW-4, in their defence evidence.
Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 5
8. The learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence found the accused-appellant guilty under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment and to pay a fine, as narrated above. However, the trial Court, acquitted co-accused Mohan Lal and Smt.Raksha Devi from the charges levelled against them after giving them benefit of doubt. Appellants- Dinesh Kumar and Amar Nath were acquitted from charges under Sections 302 and 406 of the IPC.
9. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment 20.4.2002 and order dated 23.4.2002 passed by Shri B.B.Parsoon the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
10. I have heard submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case with their able assistance.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants has made two fold contentions during the course of arguments. Firstly that sentence of Dinesh Kumar awarded by the trial Court is ten years under Section 304-B, IPC and prayer has been made for reduction of his sentence, secondly prayer for acquittal for Amar Nath appellant has been made.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that so far as Amar Nath appellant is concerned, the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B, IPC are not made out. It is submitted that four accused have been sent to stand trial, which also included Mohan Lal brother-in-law of deceased Raksha Devi, mother-in-law of deceased. The allegations against Amar Nath, Mohan Lal and Raksha Devi were the same. The learned trial Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 6 Court after appraisal of the evidence acquitted Mohan Lal and Raksha Devi accused from the charges levelled against them. On the same set of allegations, Amar Nath father-in-law of deceased aged 62 years has been convicted. There is no specific demand of dowry articles by Amar Nath- appellant. The prosecution has relied upon testimony of PW-15 Sadhu Ram uncle of deceased, Sat Pal (PW-16) father of deceased and Surya Parkash (PW-17) brother of deceased. It is submitted that none of these witnesses had given any specific instance of demand of dowry articles at the hands of Amar Nath appellant. All these witnesses have stated that Kirna Devi deceased used to make complaint against all the accused i.e. husband Dinesh Kumar, father-in-law Amar Nath, mother-in-law Raksha Devi and brother- in-law Mohan Lal with regard to the bringing less dowry and for bringing scooter. No specific instance of demand of dowry at the hands of appellant Amar Nath, Mohan Lal and Raksha Devi was made. Otherwise also, the appellant would not have been benefitted by the demand of scooter. There is tendency to implicate all the family members in case of death of bride. In following authorities, the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have held that where there are no specific allegation of specific demand of dowry articles against family members of husband, in that case, it should be held that ingredients of offence under Section 304-B, IPC are not made out and those family members are entitled for acquittal :-
(1) Kans Raj vs. State of Punjab and others (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases 207 ;
(2) Jarnail Singh alias Titu and others vs. State of Haryana 2008(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 925 ;
(3) Devi Chand and others vs. The State of Haryana 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 63. Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 7
13. In reply to the above noted submissions, learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial court. It is contended that all the ingredients of offence under Section 304-B, IPC are made out against both the appellants including Amar Nath. The death has taken place within seven years of the marriage of deceased with Dinesh Kumar. The death has taken place in an unnatural manner and injuries were also found on the body of Kirna Devi deceased. Both the appellants have subjected Kirna Devi to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry articles including scooter.
14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the sides and have gone through the records of the case.
15. There are two accused in the present appeal, who have preferred the present appeal, one is Dinesh Kumar husband, and the second one is Amar Nath father-in-law of the deceased. The case of both the accused has to be taken into account keeping in view the evidence available on the file.
16. In order to prove the ingredient of offence under Section 304-B, IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients :-
(i) The death of a woman is caused by burns or
bodily injury or otherwise than under a normal
circumstances.
(ii) that a death should have occurred within seven years of
her marriage.
(iii) Soon before her death, woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for or in connection with demand of dowry.
17. So far as the first two ingredients of offence are concerned that are clearly made out from the evidence on the file. The death has taken Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 8 place within seven years of marriage of Kirna Devi deceased with Dinesh Kumar and that death is an unnatural i.e. by consuming Aluminum Phosphate. Some injuries were also found on the body of the Kirna Devi deceased. However, all the accused have been acquitted under Sections 302 IPC by the trial Court and there is no cross-appeal preferred by the State nor the complainant has preferred any revision petition.
18. Now reverting to the evidence of the prosecution. There are three star witnesses for the prosecution in respect of demand of dowry articles at the hands of the appellants and other accused. They are Sadhu Ram (PW-15), uncle of the deceased, Sat Pal (PW-16), father of the deceased and Surya Parkash (PW-17), brother of the deceased. Sat Pal (PW-16) complainant has stated that at the time of marriage he has spent the amount beyond his financial sources, however, motor cycle was not given. This witness has further stated that after marriage his daughter came for the first time and informed him and his wife that her husband and parents-in- law were not satisfied with the dowry and there was a talk going on amongst them in this respect. She also disclosed to them that her parents-in-law and Dewar have made demand for more dowry including demand of two wheeler. He has further stated that he went to the in-laws of Kirna Devi and disclosed that he is not in a position to meet their demands, however, despite that, the accused did not stop harassing the deceased and rather they had maltreated and misbehaving with cruelty. He has further stated that he accompanied his brother and few respectable and had gone to the accused for making request to be nice towards Kirna Devi deceased. Surya Parkash (PW-17) has also visited Kirna and he also told by Kirna about ill- Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 9 treatment to her by the accused. This witness has further stated that three days prior to the death, he received a telephonic call from Kirna that she has been treated continuously with cruelty and was being harassed and she had disclosed that there was great danger of her elimination at the hands of the accused. On 4.4.2001, around 12.00noon or 1.00p.m., he received the telephonic message regarding death of Kirna. He further stated that after seeing the dead body of Kirna, he also found the mark of injuries.
19. Surya Parkash (PW-17) has stated that whenever he used to visit the house of Kirna at her in-laws house, she used to make the complaint about maltreatment at the hands of Mohan Lal, Dinesh Kumar, Raksha Devi and Amar Nath accused for bringing less dowry .
20. Sadhu Ram (PW-15), has also toes the line of Sat Pal and has stated that after sometime of the marriage, Dinesh Kumar, husband, Amar Nath, father-in-law, Mohan Lal, brother-in-law and Smt.Raksha Devi, mother-in-law started maltreating Kirna deceased on account of bringing less dowry and they made a demand of scooter. This witness has further stated that after marriage Kirna Devi came to their house accompanied by her husband and father-in-law and they made a demand for more dowry. He has further stated that they made polite request to them that they were not in a position to accept their demand and they had gone back. This witness has further stated that Surya Parkash (PW-17) also visited the house of accused and he also used to narrate about the maltreatment meted out to Kirna deceased at the hands of accused.
21. So far as accused Dinesh Kumar is concerned, he is the husband of deceased. The demand of scooter has been stated to be Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 10 made by him. He would have been benefitted by the said demand. Otherwise also, counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction under Section 304-B, IPC against him and there were some injuries on the body of Kirna. The death had taken place in the house of Dinesh Kumar in an unnatural manner. So, he is to explain the circumstances under which a young lady has turned into corpus. So, in these circumstances, the conviction of Dinesh Kumar recorded under Sections 304-B and 498-A, IPC stands affirmed.
22. Now reverting to the case of Amar Nath appellant, the allegations against him and the other two accused Mohan Lal, brother-in- law and Raksha Devi, mother-in-law are the same. There are general allegations of demand of dowry articles. No specific instance of any demand has been made against Amar Nath. No specific date, time place and articles demanded by Amar Nath has been mentioned.
23. Hon'ble Apex Court in authority Kans Raj's case (supra) upheld the conviction against the husband whereas acquittal order passed by the High Court in respect of other relatives of husband was upheld.
24. The Division Bench of this Court in authority Jarnail Singh alias Titu and others' case (supra) in para No.23 of its judgment held as under :-
"It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, that no offence whatsoever was committed by Jagir Singh and Shanti Devi, father and mother respectively of Jarnail Singh-appellant. He further submitted that they were not to be benefitted on account Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 11 of the demand referred to above. He further submitted that only Jarnail Singh could be said to be the beneficiary, in respect of the demand of Rs.1lac or in the alternative for his recruitment to the job. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard appears to be correct. It is a matter of common knowledge, that when the bridge dies in the house of her in-laws under unnatural circumstances, then no love is last between the parents of the deceased and the members of her in-laws family. In such a situation, the parents of the deceased are out and out to rope in as many members of the in-laws family of the bride, as they could possibly do. Jagir Singh and Shanti Devi as stated above, could be least benefitted on account of the demand of Rs.1lac, by Jarnail Singh from his in-laws or in the alternative for his recruitment to a job. Since, the ultimate beneficiary of such a demand was Jarnail Singh, he could only be held liable for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The evidence of Surjan Singh and Jagmeet Singh that Jagir Singh and Shanti Devi were also a party to the aforesaid demand, is not believable. Jagir Singh and Shanti Devi appear to have been falsely implicated. The trial Court was wrong, in recording conviction, against them and awarding sentence to them. The appeal qua them, is liable to the accepted. The Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 12 submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants to this extent carries substance and is accepted."
25. The demand in Jarnail Singh alias Titu and others' case (supra) was of Rs.1,00,000/- whereas the demand in the present case is regarding scooter. Amar Nath appellant would not have been benefitted by the demand of scooter. It is a matter of common knowledge that after the death of woman her family members involved all the members of in-laws family. So, in these circumstances, the Court has to safeguard such situation. Similar view was taken by Single Bench of this Court in authority Devi Chand and others' case (supra). The case of Amar Nath- appellant is better than those cases as the two similar situated accused Mohan Lal and Raksha Devi, on the same set of allegations, have been acquitted and as such the conviction recorded by the trial Court under Sections 304-B, IPC and 498-A, IPC in respect of Amar Nath-appellant, cannot be upheld in the absence of specific demand of dowry articles.
26. So, in view of the above discussion, the appeal of Amar Nath
-appellant stands accepted. The judgment of conviction qua him stands set aside and he stands acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt.
27. So far as the quantum of sentence in respect of Dinesh Kumar- appellant is concerned, the authorities Kans Raj's case (supra) passed by Hon'ble Apex Court and Jarnail Singh alias Titu and others' case (supra) passed by Division Bench of this Court, are relevant. In both these cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Bench of this court reduced the sentence to seven years instead of ten years. So, keeping in view the guide- lines laid down in these authorities, the sentence of appellant-Dinesh Criminal Appeal No.738 SB of 2002 13 Kumar under Section 304-B, IPC stands reduced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years instead of ten years awarded by the trial court. However, the sentence imposed upon appellant-Dinesh Kumar under Section 498-A, IPC stands affirmed. However, both these sentences shall run concurrently.
28. The appeal stands disposed of in the terms mentioned above.
29. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. Dinesh Kumar-accused/appellant is stated to be on bail, he be taken in the custody to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded by this Court.
( K.C.PURI )
JUDGE
November , 2011
sv