Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Dr. Sitaram Singh S/O Mahavir Singh And ... on 12 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: I(2008)DMC566, 2008 CRI. L. J. 1533, 2008 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 543 (ALL), 2008 (2) ALL LJ 363, (2008) 1 DMC 566, (2008) 60 ALLCRIC 830, (2008) 3 ALLCRILR 665, (2008) 3 RECCRIR 282, (2008) 64 ALLINDCAS 615 (ALL)
JUDGMENT B.A. Zaidi, J.
1. This is a Government Appeal against acquittal filed by the State and a Criminal Revision filed by the complainant, relating to the same incident which are being taken up together for decision. The judgment and order dated 20.8.2002, was passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ballia, by which he acquitted abovenamed, seven accused for charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. This is a tragic yet mysterious tale of a lady, who lost her life within 48 hours after dawning her bridal attire. This happened in the Eastern Uttar Pradesh town of Babubel in District Ballia. The bride hailed from Patna. Her marriage was settled with accused Arun Kumar Singh, younger brother of accused Dr. Sita Ram Singh and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and the sister's son of accused Raghuvansh Narayan Singh. Accused Smt. Prabha Devi is the wife of accused Dr. Sita Ram Singh while Smt. Jaya Singh and Smt. Savitri Shahi are the married sisters of accused Dr. Sita Ram Singh, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and Arun Kumar Singh. The marriage was solemnised at Patna on 22.2.1991 and thereafter the bride was brought to Babubail, to which Dr. Sita Ram Singh, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and Arun Kumar Singh belong, while accused Raghuvansh Narayan Singh belongs to village Gadha, P.S. Runi Saidpur District Sita Madhi Smt. Jaya Singh belongs to Goptiganj, P.S. Gopiganj Varanasi and Smt. Svitri Shahi belongs to Madhuvan, P.S. Madhuvan, Mau (U.P.). On 24.2.1991 ceremony of 'Munh Dihkai' was performed and according to the version of the accused bride Meena Singh seemed happy. Thereafter on the next day, i.e. On 25.2.1991 in the morning she partook of breakfast and after the exchange of pleasantries with the members of her family, she went to her room. At about 2.30 P.M. when uncle of accused Dr. Sita Ram Singh, knocked at the door, and the door, did not open, he grew suspicious, and the window pane was broken to gain entry into the room, and it was discovered that Meena Singh's body was hanging with a fan with her Sari tied round her neck.
3. The version from the side of the accused is that she committed suicide. The accused Dr. Sita Ram sent an information to the police on 15.2.1991 around 7.30 P.M., which was entered at police station Haldi, Ballia vide G.D. Ext. Ka-30. The father of the deceased lady Ram Nath Singh (now deceased) was informed the same evening by Dr. Sita Ram Singh about the incident, who came alongwith his friend Niyaz Ahmad, P.W. 4 nephew Shiva Nand Singh from Patna the same night and his version was that there was demand for dowry and during the solemnisation of marriage and after the arrival of bride, the talk amongst the members of the family of the bridegroom was that very sparse dowry had been given and they could have obtained much more, if the marriage had been settled elsewhere. He gave a written report about the demand of dowry and killing of his daughter by the accused at police station Haldi on 26.2.1991 at 1.15 O'clock which is Ext. Ka-5 (Ext. Ka-30) on the record.
4. Thus, according to the prosecution version, lady was done to death by her in-laws because of minimal dowry and it was wrong to state that she had committed suicide because she was not suffering from depression or any mental sickness.
5. Post mortem on the body of deceased Meena Singh was conducted on 26.2.1991 at 4.00 P.M. in District Hospital Ballia by P.W. 6 Dr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, and Dr. S.N. Wadey in presence of Dr. Z.U. Ahmad, Chief Medical Officer, Dr. V.M. Kedia Chief Medical Superintendent and Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Singh vide post mortem report Ext. Ka-9, who found no sign of decomposition, Rigor mortis present, passed from upper, present in lower, extremities, eyes half opened. Tongue protruded, base of both lungs, Kidney, and Liver, congested and the following injuries on her person.
Injuries
(i) Clotted blood present over the orifice of vagina, medial aspect of both thigh, up to leg and heel.
(ii) Ligature mark 2 cm wide, present right side of the neck, just above. Thyroid cartilage, extending, from left side of neck just behind the angle of Mandible going downward, front of neck above the thyroid cartilage towards right side of neck, going upwards and backward on the neck, obliquely placed. Small portion of neck, up to left angle of Mandible, is devoid of ligature mark.
(iii) Laceration seen on Posterior wall of vagina. Faecal matter coming out from the Anus. Hymen ruptured. After dissecting the ligature area tissue and surrounding area's tissue, there was no difference in the colour of tissues.
6. The doctors were of the view that no definite cause of death could be ascertained. Viscera was preserved, but the report of viscera (Ext. Ka-28) is that, nothing abnormal was detected.
7. Investigation of the case (Crime No. 24 of 1991 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 201 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act) was conducted by Sri Sunder Lai, Circle Officer Bairiya. The inquest report of the deceased lady was prepared by P.W. 14 S.I. Ram Khilawan Tewari, with the help of P.W.9, S.I. A.P. Pandey, under supervision of P.W.11 S.D.M. Sri Chhote Lal Singh. The investigating Officer ( Circle Officer) went on the spot, prepared site plan Ex. Ka-34 seized an iron piece, two broken latches and four nails vide Ex. Ka-35, a Sari and 6 Chappals vide Ext. Ka-36 ,'a piece of sweet vide Ext. Ka-37, Bed sheet two pillow covers vide memo, Ext. Ka 39, a sheet vide memo Ext. Ka40, a Sari lying on the Takhat' vide Ext. Ka-41, two bed sheets a'Razai', two pillows, a chair lying on the bed vide Ext. Ka-42 blood lying on the ground, beneath the ceiling fan, six clothes, vide recovery memos Ext. Ka-38. He also seized a copy of letter Ext. Ka7 dated 2.12.1990, written by Parmeshwar Singh to the father of the deceased girl, vide Ex. Ka-8. He also seized the Maruti Car, said to have been given in dowry, vide recovery memo Ext. Ka-18, and after the completion of the investigation, investigating officer Suder Lal submitted charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-43 against accused Dr. Sita Ram Singh, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Arun Kumar Singh, Smt. Prabha Devi, Raghuvansh Narain Singh and P.W. 12 Circle Officer Vijay Mohan Srivastava submitted charge-sheet against Smt. Jaya Singh and Smt. Savitri Shahi (Ext. Ka-27).
8. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 Bhushan Singh, P.W. 2 Parmeshwar Siingh, P.W. 3 Madan Mohan Singh, P.W. 4 Shivanand Singh, P.W. 5 Dr. Asha Singh, P.W. 6 Dr. Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W. 7 Sahajanand, P.W. 8 Ram Chandra Singh, P.W. 9 S.I. A.P. Pandey, P.W. 10 Tribhuwan Tiwari, P.W. 11 Shri ChhotezSingh, P.W. 12 Vijay Mohan Srivastava CO., P.W. 13 S.I. S.K. Mishra and P.W. 14 Ram Khalawan Tiwari. The case of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is of plain and simple denial. Accused Arun Kumar Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied his presence at the time of the incident, in his house saying he was in his factory at Ballia, while accused Smt. Prabha Singh's case is that after the return of the Barat, she was there at her house and Smt. Shanti Shahi's case is that after the arrival of Barat, she had left for her husband's house.
9. The Trial Judge found the evidence of the prosecution undependable and unworthy of reliance and acquitted the accused. That is what brings the State and the Complainant here.
10. Heard Sri P.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate for the Complainant, Sri P.N. Mishra Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kamal Krishna for the accused respondents and Sri A.N. Mulla,Addl. Government Advocate for the State. It will appear from the narration of facts given above that the lady was found dead the next morning after the nuptial night. The lady was found hanging from the fan in the room with the Sari round her neck. The question naturally arose, whether she was strangulated, or whether she committed suicide?
11. The related question was with regard to demand of dowry and harassment which may have led to suicide.
12. It is difficult to assume that any demand for dowry or any harassment on the basis thereof, could have taken place so immediately, after the marriage. Such features emerge only after some time, has elapsed. The Trial Court was, in the circumstances justified in coming to the conclusion, that, neither there was any demand nor any harassment thereunder.
13. There is evidence of P.W. 1 Brij Bhushan and P.W. 3 Madan Mohan Singh both real brother of deceased Meena, that the ladies who came in the Barat had made some taunting remarks about insufficiency of arrangements food and in dowry but the statement of P.Ws. 1 and 3 are based on hearsay evidence, because they say that they heard it from their mother. Even assuming any such remarks were made, it cannot be deemed to amounting to harassment, more particularly, in view of the fact that they were not made in hearing of the midst of the deceased lady, who was naturally not there, but in a separate room.
14. Reference has been made by the counsel for the State to the letter Ex. Ka-7 (Ex. Ka-2 photo copy) on record which is written by P.W.2 Parmeshwar Singh, in which demand of Rs. 5 lacs and a Maruti Car is said to have been made by the two accused doctors elder brothers of accused Arun Kumar and which was sent to the father of the girl, through his nephew. It will be noticed that this witness (P.W.2) was declared hostile, and was cross examined by the counsel for the State and he is thus a discredited witness for the prosecution. Besides he had no personal knowledge of the demand, and he learnt about it from his nephew (Middleman). His statement in the letter is, therefore, of a hearsay nature and the nephew concerned has not been examined as a witness. The letter, therefore, looses it's incriminating value.
15. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in concluding that the presumption under Section 113J3 of the Evidence Act will not be applicable to the facts of the case. It was, therefore, for the prosecution to prove to the hilt, that the lady was strangulated.
16. It is fairly obvious that she died of 'Asphyxia', because both lungs were congested. The question is whether she was strangulated or she committed suicide? There is evidence, to the effect that she was not averse to her marriage with the accused, and there is no suggestion that she had any prior affiliations and, the prosecution suggestion is that there was no reason for her to commit suicide and should, therefore, be assumed that she was strangulated! The mere fact, that there is no apparent reason, for committing suicide will not lead to the automatic assumption that she was strangulated. There may have been other reasons for suicide, which we do not know, because it is a subjective phenomenon, and obvious reasons for committing suicide are not always available. The Medical Evidence available in the case, does not conclude, that there was strangulation and the doctors who conducted the post mortem report, opined that no definite cause of death, could be ascertained. The post mortem report should have been more exhaustive, and there was no reason, why the doctors could not come to a conclusion, about the cause of death, if a deeper probe was made.
17. The tendency of doctors to take the easy course of writing out in the post mortem reports that no definite cause of death could be found, needs to be deprecated, Even if no specific cause of death is discovered the doctor who conducts the post mortem report may atleast mention, likelihood and probabilities leading to death.
18. The doctors who conducted the post mortem report have not done so, and the medical evidence is of no help to the court in determining whether it was a case of strangulation or suicide!
19. The death of the lady continues to remain an enigma, shrouded in mystery, which remains unresolved. The doctors conducted the post mortem have not rendered proper help in unfolding the mystery of death! It is sad and distressing to see that a lady died the very next morning, after her marriage, and it has not been possible to find out, how and why, and for what reasons the lady died?
20. It was argued by the counsel for the prosecution that the circumstance that the lady died in the room where she spent the night with her husband in the house of the Husband, provides positive inference of guilt of the accused, and it was for them to explain, the circumstances in which she died.
21. As mentioned earlier, the presumption of Section 113-B will not be available in this case, and as such, from the mere fact of the death of the deceased in the house of the accused, the presumption of guilt against the accused cannot be drawn, and it is for the prosecution to prove, the guilt of the accused by positive evidence.
22. The counsel for the appellant further pointed out that there was laceration in the vaginal wall, and there was bleeding from there and urine and faecal matter also came out, which provides ground for assuming that she was strangulated but these features can also appear in the case of 'Hanging' as has been mentioned by Modi in his Celebrated Treatise, Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Twenty Second edition) at pages -255-256.
23. If the question is as to why the lady would commit suicide, the counter question, is as to why the lady would be killed, whom the accused had brought to their home after a wedding with such fanfare. There was need for positive proof on the part of the prosecution, for involvement of the accused in killing, which is unavailable here. The Trial Court was, therefore, justified in concluding that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused.
24. The counsel for the complainant has referred to the following cases:
(i) Satvir Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. & Tejinder Pal Kaur v. State of Punjab and Anr. .
(ii) Smt. Shanti and another v. State of Haryana .
(iii) State of Kamatak v. M.V. Manjunathethegowda and Anr. (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 1888.
(iv) Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka .
(v) Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors. .
These cases relate to the application of Section 304-B I.P.C. It has been held above that presumption under Section 113-B is not available in this case and the question of applicability of Section 304-B does not, therefore, arise. The counsel has further referred the case of State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawaand Anr. , in which it has been held that it is not necessary that there should be direct demand of dowry and the demand of dowry can be established by circumstantial evidence also In the present case, we have held that the demand of dowry has not been proved and the case is, therefore, of.
25. The counsel for the complainant has also referred to the case of State of Orissa v. Jaharlal Das, Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa Crimes 1991 (1) page 19 (Orissa High Court). In this case, the doctor has reported that the injuries had been caused by strangulation and that is why the court concluded that the case was of deliberate killing. In the case in hand, the doctors have not been able to come to any conclusion about the cause of death and, therefore, this case has no application to the facts of the present case. Appeal and Revision both dismissed.