Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sushil Kumar And Ors on 10 October, 2014
CRA-D-945-DBA of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-945-DBA of 2002
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 10, 2014
STATE OF PUNJAB ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUSHIL KUMAR & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SNEH PRASHAR.
1. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes/No
----
PRESENT: MR. P.P.S.THETHI, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB.
M. JEYAPAUL, J.
1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused under Section 304-B IPC and conviction of accused Sushil Kumar alone under Section 498-A IPC, the State has preferred the present appeal.
2. It is relevant to point out, at this stage itself, that accused Sushil Kumar, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 498-A IPC preferred an appeal in Crl.A. No.1245-SB of 2002 and the same was decided by this Court on 23.9.2008, confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence imposed on him.
3. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution relevant for disposal of this case is as follows:-
a) PW6 Sohan Lal was the father of deceased Sushma Rani. Sushma Rani was given in marriage to accused Sushil Kumar, the 1st respondent herein.
Accused Pawan Kumar, 2nd respondent herein and accused Rajinder Kumar, 3rd SUMIT GULATI 2014.10.17 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-945-DBA of 2002 -2- respondent herein are the brothers of the 1st respondent and accused Sudarshan Sood and accused Sonia Sood, the 4th and 5th respondents are the respective wives of respondents No.2 and 3. PW6 Sohan Lal set the law in motion by lodging a complaint. He had alleged that soon after the marriage, all the respondents started harassing his daughter for having brought insufficient dowry. They also used to harass her for not bringing T.V. and refrigerator. PW6 retired in the month of July, 1997. Accused demanded `4 lakh. The deceased informed him of such a demand made by the accused. PW6 visited the house of accused Sushil Kumar and advised him not to harass his daughter. In the month of February 2000, accused Sushil Kumar raised a demand of `4 lac for purchase of a flat in Chandigarh. On 27.3.2000, PW6 received a phone call that Sushma Rani had been killed. PW6 alleged that accused had compelled his daughter to die on account of demand of dowry.
b) PW7 Darshana Devi was the mother and PW8 Rajinder Sood was the maternal uncle of the deceased. PW6 to PW8 spoke about the demand of dowry and the harassment meted out to the deceased.
c) The accused have set up a plea in their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that there was no such demand of dowry from the deceased or from her parents. Deceased Sushma Rani suddenly fell ill and expired on 27.3.2000. A due intimation was sent to the parents of Sushma Rani. Only after the arrival of her parents, the cremation was done.
d) On the side of the accused DW1 Simla Ram, DW2 Swaran Singh and DW3 SI Malkiat Singh were examined and the enquiry report Ex.D1 to show that accused Sonia and Rajinder Kumar were not present at the time of SUMIT GULATI 2014.10.17 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-945-DBA of 2002 -3- occurrence was also marked on the side of the accused.
4. The trial Court having thoroughly adverted to the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW6 to PW8 as regards the demand of dowry allegedly made by the accused. Further, the prosecution failed to establish that demand of dowry had been made soon before the death of Sushma Rani. Finding that there was some evidence to show that accused Sushil Kumar harassed Sushma and subjected her to cruelty, the trial Court convicted the accused Sushil Kumar under Section 498-A IPC.
5. The challenge made by Sushil Kumar to the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 498-A IPC had already been decided by this Court in Crl.A. No.1245-SB of 2002. Therefore, we have proposed not to embark upon the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as against the Sushil Kumar under Section 498-A IPC.
6. This Court has been called upon to decide in the present appeal preferred by the State as to whether the charge under Section 304-B IPC framed against the accused-respondents were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
7. Learned Addl.A.G., Punjab appearing for the State would submit that evidence of PW6 to PW8 would go to establish without any shadow of doubt that there was persistent demand of dowry soon before the death of Sushma Rani and as a result of which she died an unnatural death.
8. In the instant case, the dead body of Sushma Rani was not subjected to post mortem examination by a competent Doctor. It is alleged on the side of the prosecution that cremation had taken before the arrival of the SUMIT GULATI 2014.10.17 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-945-DBA of 2002 -4- parents of Sushma Rani. On the other hand, the accused had set up a plea in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that cremation of the dead body of Sushma Rani took place only in the very presence of the parents of the deceased. But the fact remains that the prosecution failed to establish that dead body had been cremated even before the arrival of the parents of the deceased. Under such circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for the alleged cremation of the dead body of Sushma Rani before the arrival of her parents. It is to be noted that there was no medical evidence on record to show that Sushma Rani had died unnatural death.
9. Let us now take up the case of the prosecution that there was a consistent demand of dowry made by the accused. PW6 Sohal Lal, the father of the deceased Sushma Rani had stated in the first information report that soon after the marriage which took place about 6½ years prior to the death of Sushma Rani, the accused made a demand for television set and refrigerator. In the month of September, 1994 a son was born to Sushma Rani. PW6 alleged that he had retired as Teacher, in the year 1997 and all the accused made a demand of `4 lacs from out of the retiral benefits of PW6. It is his further allegation in the first information report that in the year 2000, prior to the death of Sushma Rani, the 1st accused Sushil Kumar made a demand of `4 lacs for purchase of flat in Chandigarh.
10. As per the evidence of PW6, demand of Television Set and refrigerator had been made prior to the birth of child to Sushma Rani in year 1994. It is quite improbable that the accused persisted such a demand of television set and refrigerator for about 6 long years till the death of Sushma SUMIT GULATI 2014.10.17 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-945-DBA of 2002 -5- Rani in the year 2000. At the time when PW6 retired from service in 2007, it had been alleged that all the accused made a demand of `4 lacs from his retiral benefits. PW6 had changed the above version and submitted that in the year 2000, it was only the 1st respondent Sushil Kumar who demanded `4 lacs for the purpose of purchasing a flat in Chandigarh. During the course of trial, PW6 had stated that deceased Sushma Rani was pressurized to bring the cost of colour television set and refrigerator in cash. Such a version of PW6 that there was a demand of dowry soon before the death of his daughter does not inspire confidence.
11. Let us now take up the testimony of PW7 Darshana Devi, the mother of deceased Sushma Rani. She had come out with an improvement during the course of evidence that a demand of sum of `25,000/- was raised by accused as they required the same for household expenses. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she had not whispered about such a demand of `25,000/- made by the accused to meet the household expenses. She was not specific as to at what point to time there was a demand of colour television and refrigerator. The contradictory version of PW7 speaks of untrustworthiness of her testimony as regards the demand of dowry by all the accused soon before the death of Sushma Rani.
12. Coming to the testimony of other material witness, PW8 Rajinder Sood, maternal uncle of the deceased, we find that he had come out with a hear- say testimony, inasmuch as he had stated that there was no discussion in his presence by the family members as regards the demand of `4 lacs by the accused. Though, he had deposed in the Court that a demand of `4 lacs was SUMIT GULATI 2014.10.17 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-D-945-DBA of 2002 -6- made by the accused, it was found that he had never referred to such a demand made by the accused in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The cruelty allegedly committed by the accused was also not shown to have any proximate link with the death which had taken place long after such a demand. Further, in our view, respondents No.2 to 5 who had no concern with the television set and refrigerator would not have joined the main accused Sushil Kumar in making such a demand.
13. For all these reasons, we find that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion on proper evaluation of evidence on record that the prosecution has not only failed to establish the unnatural death of Sushma Rani, but also the cruelty allegedly committed demanding dowry soon before the death of Sushma Rani. The State has not made out a case to interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial Court for the charge under Section 304-A IPC.
14. Therefore, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed.
(M. JEYAPAUL)
JUDGE
October 10, 2014 (SNEH PRASHAR)
Gulati JUDGE
SUMIT GULATI
2014.10.17 14:34
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document