Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ranjit Singh And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 24 September, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 750/2013
1. Ranjit Singh, S/o Vijay Singh, B/c Gurjar, R/o Umren, Police
Station Weir, District Bharatpur
2. Vijay Singh, S/o Kishan Singh, B/c Gurjar, R/o Umren, Police
Station Weir, District Bharatpur.
(Appellants are in Judicial custody at Central Jail, Bharatpur)
----Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D.S. Bagadia
For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Rekha Madnani for the State
For Complainant : Mr. Jiya-Ur-Rahman
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
24/09/2019
Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the
judgment/order dated 17.09.2013 passed by the trial Court, whereby, appellants were convicted and sentenced qua offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the report lodged by complainant Prem Singh. On the basis of report Exhibit- P-1, formal FIR No. 167 dated 19.03.2012 was registered at police Station Bayana District Bharatpur under Sections 304-B and 201 IPC.
As per the FIR, prosecution story, in brief, is that Sangeeta (daughter of complainant Prem Singh) got married to appellant (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM) (2 of 8) [CRLA-750/2013] Ranjit Singh on 21.11.2011. Complainant had given sufficient dowry as per his capacity and had also given Rs. 3,21,000/- in cash. In all, complainant had given dowry to the tune of Rs. 5,51,000/- to the accused. Appellant Vijay Singh and his wife Santa had told Rajendra (nephew of the complainant) before the marriage ceremony that they should be given a L.C.D. and they had not been given a gold chain and a ring, at the time of Lagan ceremony. From the day of marriage, behavior of the appellants towards the daughter of the complainant was cruel. Appellants used to taunt the daughter of the complainant on every small thing and used to tell her that her family members had not given her anything. Complainant had also been told by his daughter that the accused were raising demand of a motorcycle and one plot and due to this reason, they used to give beatings to her. On 13.03.2012 Dhara Singh, younger brother of the complainant alongwith his wife had gone to meet Sangeeta and she told them that she was being harassed on account of demand of dowry. On 17.03.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., complainant made a phone call to his son-in-law Ranjit Singh and asked him that he should make her talk to Sangeeta, but Ranjit Singh disconnected the phone. Then, the complainant made a phone call at the residence of appellant Vijay Singh and some neighbour picked up the phone and told the complainant that his daughter had died and had been cremated between 6.00 to 7.00 p.m. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellants and their co-accused Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Singh and Saddam. So far as accused Santa is concerned, she was declared an absconder. (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM)
(3 of 8) [CRLA-750/2013] Charges were framed against appellants under Sections 498- A, 302 in the alternative Section 304-B and 201 IPC. Appellants did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eleven witnesses during trial. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case. It was alleged that on 14.03.2012, Sangeeta had come to Bayana from Jaipur. On 17.03.2012, Sangeeta had died while she was ironing clothes as she had suffered electric current. Family members of Sangeeta had been informed about the incident and had attended the cremation ceremony. Deceased had never been harassed on account of demand of dowry. Sangeeta had been cremated by the accused on 18.03.2012 in the presence of her family members.
Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 17.09.2013 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 304- B, 498-A and 201 IPC. Accused Shyam Sunder @ Shyam Singh and Saddam were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence, the present appeal by the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case, there was no evidence on record to establish that the deceased had ever been harassed on account of demand of dowry. Infact, complainant Prem Singh and appellant Vijay Singh knew each other and were friends and had decided to perform marriage of their children. Appellant Ranjit Singh was residing at Jaipur alongwith his wife Sangeeta. Both were students. Complainant party had participated (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM) (4 of 8) [CRLA-750/2013] in the cremation ceremony and had thereafter, falsely involved the appellants in this case by levelling false allegations. FIR was lodged on 19.03.2012. Sangeeta had died as she had suffered electric current while ironing clothes.
Learned State Counsel, who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that Sangeeta had been cremated without informing the complainant party. Due to his reason, there was no post-mortem examination report on record.
Present case relates to dowry death. Sangeeta (since deceased) had got married to appellant Ranjit Singh on 21.11.2011. Sangeeta died in her matrimonial home on 17.03.2012.
Complainant while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Statement of the complainant is corroborated by PW-3 Rajendra (brother of the deceased), PW-4 Gulab Singh Rathore (paternal uncle of the deceased), PW-6 Rajkumari (aunt of the deceased), PW-7 Dhara Singh (paternal uncle of the deceased), PW-9 Keshula (mother of the deceased), PW-10 Amar Singh (maternal uncle of the deceased) and PW-11 Dayaram (maternal uncle of the deceased).
In order to establish that the death of a victim is a dowry death, prosecution is required to establish that the death of a woman had been caused by burns or bodily injury otherwise, then, under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand of dowry.
(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM)
(5 of 8) [CRLA-750/2013] As per Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 when the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
As per the parents as well as the other relatives of complainant Sangeeta had been harassed on account of demand of dowry by the appellants. Sangeeta has died within four months of her marriage, in her matrimonial home. It is the case of the complainant party that the dead body of Sangeeta was cremated without informing them. From the cross-examination of the parents as well as other relatives of the deceased, it can not be inferred that the complainant party had been duly informed with regard to the cremation ceremony of Sangeeta and they had participated in the same.
Thus, from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that the dead body of Sangeeta was cremated in the absence of her paternal family members. Since, Sangeeta was cremated in the absence of her paternal family members, no objection could be raised by them with regard to unnatural death of Sangeeta. No post-mortem examination could be conducted on the dead body of Sangeeta, as her paternal family members were not present at the time of her cremation ceremony. Due to this reason, after the FIR was registered, the bones etc. of the deceased were taken in police possession by the Investigating Officer PW-4 Gulab Singh Rathore.
(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM)
(6 of 8) [CRLA-750/2013] The plea set up by the appellants when, they were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that Sangeeta had suffered electric current while she was ironing clothes. However, there is no corroborative medical evidence on record, in this regard.
D.W.-2 Jagdish has deposed that on coming to know that daughter-in-law of Vijay Singh had died on account of electric current, he had gone to the spot. Phone rang in the house of Vijay Singh, but he did not answer the call and some other person had answered the call and had told the person, who had made the call that his daughter had died. The caller informed that he would send some family members to attend the cremation ceremony. Vijay Singh took the dead body to Umred, but he had not gone with the said persons. He could not tell as to when the cremation was done. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he had not seen the dead body. When he had gone, the dead body had been covered with a quilt. He had heard that the deceased had been taken to the hospital, where, she had been declared dead. Only God could tell as to what was the cause of death of the deceased.
Thus, from the statement of DW-2, it is evident that the version of the complainant that he had been informed by a neighbour on his phone call made at the house of Vijay Singh that his daughter had died, stands corroborated. As per DW-2, Sangeeta had been taken to the hospital, where she had been declared dead but no such medical record has been proved on the file to establish that Sangeeta had died on account of receipt of electric current as pleaded by the appellants. DW-2 had not seen the dead body and had not attended the cremation ceremony. Hence, statement of DW-2 fails to advance the case of the appellants.
(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM)
(7 of 8) [CRLA-750/2013] DW-1 Ankit Dubey deposed that he was residing in Jaipur and had given his house on rent. In July 2011, Ranjit Singh had taken his house on rent. After 3/4 months, Ranjit Singh had got married and had started residing in the house alongwith his wife. Both of them were students and stayed in his premises up to March 2012. Both husband and wife were having good relations. On 14.03.2012, the girl had gone to Bayana. On the 17 th Ranjit told him that he was going to Bayana as his wife had died due to receipt of electric current. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the house, he was talking about did not belong to him or his father. The house belonged to his uncle Manoj Sharma. He could not produce the rent deed. He had come to the Court at the instance of family members of Ranjit Singh.
Thus, the Statement of DW-1 also fails to advance the case of the appellants as the said witness was not the owner of the house, nor had produced the rent deed on record to corroborate his statement.
Thus, in the present case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution had been successful in establishing that it was a case of dowry death. Parents as well as relatives of the deceased have deposed that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry by the appellants. Appellants with a view to screen themselves from legal punishment had cremated the dead body in the absence of the paternal family of the deceased. The plea taken by the appellants that the deceased had died on account of receipt of electric current is not substantiated on record. There is no medical evidence on record to establish that the deceased had died on account of receipt of electric current. (Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM)
(8 of 8) [CRLA-750/2013] Since, the deceased had died in her matrimonial home, it was for the appellants to have justified that her death was a natural death and not an unnatural death. Rather, with a view to escape punishment, they had cremated the dead body in a hurry and this fact leads to an irresistible conclusion that the deceased had died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home.
Keeping in view the totality of circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 IPC.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (SABINA),J
Sudha/26
(Downloaded on 30/09/2019 at 09:03:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)