Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Brajesh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 18 July, 2019
Bench: Sabina, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 913/2016
1. Brajesh son of Shri Bhagri.
2. Ramdas son of Shri Bhagri.
3. Ramlakhan son of Shri Bhagri.
4. Ramvilas son of Shri Bhagri.
5. Atar Singh son of Shri Sripal.
6. Naresh son of Shri Badri.
All by caste Jatav, resident of Village Pali, Police Station
Badi, District Dholput (Raj.).
(At present accused appellant No.1 is confined in District Jail,
Dholpur)
----Accused-Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through PP.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Javed Choudhary, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment
18/07/2019
Appellants have faced trial in FIR No.155 dated
17.3.2012 registered at Police Station Bari, District Dholpur under Section 304-B and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM)
(2 of 8) [CRLA-913/2016] Prosecution story, as per the FIR, in brief, is that Mithlesh sister of Complainant - Matadeen had got married to appellant No.1 Brajesh about two years prior to the incident. However, Mithlesh was being harassed on account of demand of dowry by her husband, mother-in-law Rona, brother-in-law Ramdas, Ramlakhan, Ramvilas and sister-in-law Guddi wife of Ramdas, Guddi wife of Ramlakhan and Barmi wife of Ramvilas. The said persons had raised demand of a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash from Mithlesh. Since, the said demand could not be met, Mithlesh was being harassed/maltreated by the accused. On 11.3.2012, complainant party had gone to the in-laws house of Mithlesh and had tried to make them understand to keep Mithlesh in her matrimonial home properly, but the accused reiterated the demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash and motorcycle and said that in case, the said demand was met within 5 days, they would take Mithlesh with them, otherwise, they would kill her and perform second marriage of Brajesh. On 15.3.2012, at night time accused gave beatings to Mithlesh and murdered her. They cremated the dead body quickly in the morning on 16.3.2012 and had informed the complainant in the afternoon on 16.3.2012 that Mithlesh had died. When complainant party reached the in-laws house of Mithlesh, they found that the dead body of Mithlesh had already been cremated.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against appellants Brajesh, Ramdas, Ramlakhan, Ramvilas, Atar Singh and Naresh.
Charge was framed against appellant - Brajesh under Section 304-B and 201 IPC, whereas, against the other accused (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM) (3 of 8) [CRLA-913/2016] charges were framed under Section 201 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 8 witnesses. Accused when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C'), after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed that they were innocent. Accused examined one witness in their defence.
Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 20.8.2016 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellants with regard to 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. Deceased had never been harassed on account of demand of dowry. There was no post-mortem examination report on record to establish that the deceased had died an un-natural death. Thus, the basic ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 304 IPC was not made out. Hence, they were liable to acquitted. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baijnath and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 101, wherein, it was held as under:-
"33. Tested on the judicially adumbrated parameters as above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, cruelty or harassment to the deceased for or in connection with any demand for dowry as contemplated in either of the two provisions of the Code under which the accused persons had been charged. Noticeably, the alleged demand centers around (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM) (4 of 8) [CRLA-913/2016] a motorcycle, which as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses would evince, admittedly did not surface at the time of finalization of the marriage. PW-5, the mother of the deceased has even conceded that there was no dowry demand at that stage. According to her, when the husband (who is dead) had insisted for a motorcycle, thereafter he was assured that he would be provided with the same, finances permitting. Noticeably again, the demand, as sought to be projected by the prosecution, if accepted to be true had lingered for almost two years. Yet admittedly, no complaint was made thereof to anyone, far less the police. Apart from the general allegations in the same tone ingeminated with parrot-like similarity by the prosecution witnesses, the allegation of cruelty and harassment to the deceased is founded on the confidential communications by her to her parents in particular and is not supported by any other quarter."
Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. Present case relates to death of Mithlesh. Deceased had died in the house of her in-laws.
In order to constitute an offence under Section 304-B IPC, a death of a woman must have been caused otherwise than under normal circumstances and should have occurred within seven years of her marriage. Soon before her death, the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by relative of her husband and such cruelty must be for or in connection with demand of dowry.
Let us examine the evidence in this case as to whether the present case falls within the definition of dowry death.
Complainant while appearing in witness-box as PW-1 has deposed that his sister Mithlesh was married to Brajesh in the (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM) (5 of 8) [CRLA-913/2016] year 2009. They had given sufficient dowry as per their capacity at the time of marriage of his sister. However, in-laws family of his sister were not satisfied with the dowry given to them and had raised demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash. Brajesh, Ramdas, Ramvilas, Ramlakhan, Guddi, Rona and wife of Ramvilas used to raise demand of a motorcycle and Rs.50,000/- in cash. Due to this reason, accused used to beat Mithlesh. Mithlesh had visited him and had narrated the demand of Rs.50,000/- in cash and a motorcycle raised by the accused and the fact that due to this reason, she had been given beatings by the accused. On 11.3.2012, he along with others had gone to the matrimonial home of his sister and had assured that they would make arrangements to pay the amount, but after 4/5 days, accused murdered Mithlesh on 15th and they were informed about her death on 16th. On receiving the information about the death of his sister, they went to her matrimonial home and found his sister already been cremated. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR.
Statement of PW-1 Mata Deen is corroborated by PW-2 Adi Ram, PW-3 Pati Ram, PW-4 Dhani Ram and PW-5 Santo Devi.
Thus, the family members of the deceased have deposed that the deceased was being harassed on account of demand of dowry and had been murdered on 15.3.2012 at night time. The complainant party was informed regarding the death of Mithlesh on 16.3.2012. When they reached the village of the appellants in the afternoon, they found that Mithlesh had already been cremated. Since, Mithlesh had already been cremated before the complainant party reached the village of the accused, no post- mortem examination could be got conducted by the complainant (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM) (6 of 8) [CRLA-913/2016] party to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. This shows that the accused might have either murdered Mithlesh or she might have committed suicide and with the view to hide the cause of death of Mithlesh, accused quickly cremated the dead body of Mithlesh before her family members could arrive. Complainant party was informed with regard to death of Mithlesh in the morning of 16.3.2012. In natural circumstances, accused should have waited for the complainant party to have reached there and participate in the cremation ceremony. There is no explanation by the accused/appellants with regard to the cremation of the deceased in a hurried manner. It is not a case where the complainant party took too long to reach the village of the accused. Complainant party had come to know in the morning about the death of Mithlesh and had reached the village of the accused in the afternoon. Thus, it cannot be said that there was much time gap between the receipt of information of death by the complainant party and their arrival in the village of the accused. The fact that the accused cremated the dead body of Mithlesh without waiting for the complainant party shows their bad intention. The only inference that can be drawn is that the dead body was cremated without waiting for the complainant party by the accused with a view to save themselves from the offence committed by them.
Appellants have examined DW-1 Ram Akhatyar and the said witness had deposed that Mithlesh was suffering from some illness and she was in parental house for about 4/5 months prior to the incident.
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM)
(7 of 8) [CRLA-913/2016] However, there is no medical record exhibited by the appellants with regard to the medical condition of Mithlesh. In case, Mithlesh was suffering from any illness and had remained under treatment, the medical record could have been exhibited by the appellants to substantiate the statement of DW-1 Ram Akhatyar. Appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. have not taken the plea that the deceased was suffering from some illness. Rather, DW-1 Ram Akhatyar has come out with a new plea and the same appears to be an afterthought.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant No.1 Brajesh under Section 304-B and 201 IPC. The other appellants helped appellant No.1 in destroying the evidence with regard to the offence committed by appellant No.1, hence, they have been rightly convicted and sentenced with regard to offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the sentence of appellant Brajesh be reduced from imprisonment for life to 10 years. In this regard learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pathan Hussain Basha vs. State of Andhra Prades, 2012 Cr.L.R. (SC) 804 and Hari Om vs. State of Haryana and Anr., 2015 Cr.L.R. (SC) 271.
There is no quarrel with the preposition of law settled by the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant. However, the facts of the present case are that after the death of Mithilesh, appellant No.1 had cremated the dead body before (Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM) (8 of 8) [CRLA-913/2016] waiting for her family members with a view to save himself from conviction. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for reducing the sentence of appellant No.1 is made out.
Dismissed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR)J. (SABINA)J.
Dheeraj/46
(Downloaded on 01/09/2019 at 07:54:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)